Cactus Game Design Message Boards
Redemption® Collectible Trading Card Game HQ => Official Rules & Errata => Ruling Questions => Topic started by: megamanlan on April 02, 2012, 12:09:02 AM
-
Does Captain of the Host Negate TC cards in territory?
Captain of the Host (Wa)
Type: Hero Char. • Brigade: Silver • Ability: 10 / 10 • Class: None • Special Ability: Interrupt and prevent all special abilities except banding. Fight by the numbers. • Play As: Negate all special abilities on Characters and Enhancements (except banding and Captain’s special abilities). • Identifiers: OT Male Angel, Prophet • Verse: Joshua 5:14 • Availability: Warriors booster packs (Rare)
-
I believe that most people are proposing that at some point it was stated that it defaults to battle...long way of saying "I'm pretty sure no, but I can't find you proof :D".
I've only ever seen it ruled as negating what's in battle, but I know that a literal interpretation would say otherwise. If I find you some proof, I'll give it to you :)
-
I'm just looking at the card and the Errata. It doesn't seem to not Negate TC Enhancements in territory...
-
I'm just looking at the card and the Errata. It doesn't seem to not Negate TC Enhancements in territory...
Don't think of it as "ignore play-as disguised as errata", but...that is not an errata. Some of the play-as are wrong. They were intended to increase readability of old abilities, but they added wording that wasn't there before in some cases.
The play-as changes the card's wording. It should not be taken as truth unless accompanied by an official errata ruling (which there is none, I just checked for you :)).
-
Okay, so it does Negate TC Enhancements?
-
Okay, so it does Negate TC Enhancements?
At this point, the consensus is "no", if by TC enhancements you mean enhancements placed in territories before the battle. Only CWD really can stop TC enhancements outside of battle.
I'm being told that this is the ruling, but again, I am trying to find proof. Right now, it looks like it only negates what is in the battle (and that is under discussion too...).
-
Well, what about TSA?
-
Well, what about TSA?
Again, you're asking good questions that I cannot find proof for. I just did a search and reviewed a couple dozen threads, didn't find anything.
Though, please expound on your question for people to answer it. I think you meant that, since TSA states all special abilities on characters and enhancements, that "all" should include those outside of battle. Again, good question.
Can we get some help on this, either from the REG or a previous ruling, as to why these should only target battle?
-
CotH and TSA should both negate Enhancements in territory. Their play-as needs to be properly labeled as errata. Currently, FbtN Heroes negate everything ever.
-
I thought Placed enhancements couldn't be negated after the phase in which they were placed as long as they stayed out of battle?
-
That's a common misconception (somehow). The place part becomes CBN the phase after it's placed, but the ability after the colon remains fully negatable unless it was CBN when played.
-
I think it's the Draw/Searchs that is limited to the Phase (ie. You cant make an Opponent put the card back that they drew by 7yoP if TSA is in Battle) But I'm not sure if this is correct. I know that it stops Continuous effects, (ie. Simon the Zelot) but not triggers if it was outside of that Phase.
-
You're kind of on the right track. ALL abilities become CBN the phase after they are played unless they are ongoing abilities. So TSA (who needs to be properly errata'd) would negate Simon Zealotes (who has an ongoing ability) for one phase, but not Seven Years of Plenty as it was an instant ability that completed in a previous phase.
-
Okay. One more Question: On Simon's effect, does it have to go back into Battle to regain his Protect or does he get it back after battle?
-
He gets it back after the phase. The trigger (him having been in battle) was already met on a previous phase, so after the negate is removed the protection comes back.
-
Okay so only an ongoing Negate (ie Satan's Seat, etc) would keep his effect from being utilized then?
-
I was just made aware of this thread, and just want to state that FBN characters (Moses, TSA, CotH, etc.) have always been understood and played to only negate abilities in battle. I don't think this status quo will be changing. But if it were to, there would be an announcement from the elders about it.
-
I was just made aware of this thread, and just want to state that FBN characters (Moses, TSA, CotH, etc.) have always been understood and played to only negate abilities in battle. I don't think this status quo will be changing. But if it were to, there would be an announcement from the elders about it.
Uh-oh...AFAIK, FBTN characters negate all characters and enhancements in play, including placed enhancements. I see no reason why that would not be the case, but since it seems to be a prevailing opinion that it's not, we'll probably have to have a discussion about it on the Elders board.
-
Per the wording on the actual card I would say that FBTN negate outside of battle. I'm not sure if that's best for the game though.
-
I'm good as long as a consensus comes. Because its just confusing to me.
-
I'm good as long as a consensus comes. Because its just confusing to me.
Agreed, and since there is a slight disagreement now between elders, will this be one of those "we'll be back with a ruling" things? :) That's all we want, is consistency.
-
So how are we supposed to rule this until you get back to us?
-
So how are we supposed to rule this until you get back to us?
Based on the discussion so far, I would recommend ruling that FBN characters DO negate characters and enhs anywhere in play (and that CotH will probably get an errata limiting him to characters and enhs as well).
It could end up differently, but that's my best guess on the conclusion at this point. And with State tourneys coming up you deserve something to use for now :)
-
Okay, thx
-
interesting so my moses just got a power boost
-
That's how it originally was supposed to be played if u go by the card directly.
-
That's how it originally was supposed to be played if u go by the card directly.
The wording on a card does not indicate the intention for how that card was intended to be played. If you believe that it is, then you haven't been around long enough ;)
-
I know it's not how it was intended to be played, but I'm saying thats what the card actually says, since the card doesn't limit to battle.
-
I know it's not how it was intended to be played, but I'm saying thats what the card actually says, since the card doesn't limit to battle.
I understand that. It's unfortunately just not new for the wording not to match the intention (won't name any cards to avoid downvotes....) :D
FWIW, I agree with you (kind of) about the technical reading of these cards, but it's moot because it will (likely) be fixed to again reflect the status quo (hopefully).
-
I know it's not how it was intended to be played, but I'm saying thats what the card actually says, since the card doesn't limit to battle.
I understand that. It's unfortunately just not new for the wording not to match the intention (won't name any cards to avoid downvotes....) :D
FWIW, I agree with you (kind of) about the technical reading of these cards, but it's moot because it will (likely) be fixed to again reflect the status quo (hopefully).
Ah...but which Status quo?
-
Actually, the new status quo is that it Negates territory until the Elders come to a consensus. Personally, I'd like it better to be the new status quo, the the old one.
-
Hey,
Based on the discussion so far, I would recommend ruling that FBN characters DO negate characters and enhs anywhere in play (and that CotH will probably get an errata limiting him to characters and enhs as well).
It could end up differently, but that's my best guess on the conclusion at this point. And with State tourneys coming up you deserve something to use for now :)
To add to what Prof U said, the following explanation has more or less been accepted by all of the elders involved in the private discussion on this topic. I think it is safe to threat this as the official ruling.
FBTN negates special abilities on characters and enhancements in play, not just in battle.
That generally does not include "while in play" abilities. An ability can only be negated during the phase in which it activates. If it's ability persists after that phase it becomes effectively CBN. So the "while in play" ability on a Simon the Zealot who activated on a previous turn is not negated by FBTN. But a Simon the Zealot who activated during the current battle but was withdrawn to territory before the FBTN card is played would be negated.
The way we currently play placed enhancements like Herod's Treachery, is that once it's placed the "while placed" effect is active like an artifact is active, so it can be negated or interrupted during any phase for that phase, but it will kick back in at the beginning of the next phase if it is not discarded. (This isn't currently explained in the REG and should be added to the place entry when we get a chance.) So FBTN does stop placed enhancements during the battle phase but the placed enhancement kicks back in for the discard phase.
To go along with this ruling, we are giving Captain of the Host errata that matches what is currently listed in the REG as play as for Captain.
Tschow,
Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly
-
Actually, the effect seems to counterdict what Prof U has said, I seem to be understanding that Simon the Zealot's Protect isn't negated if it wasn't in that phase?
The understanding that I had by Pol was that a FBTN Character would negate Simon this phase, but his ability starts up again during the next phase, is this correct or not?
-
In that particular case, I'm not sure that it would. I know that placed cards with ongoing abilities can be negated temporarily, but idk if "While remains in play" abilities are considered to be constantly activating like that. Logic tells me it's an ongoing ability, and it may very well be, but it could also be seen as an instant ability with a sunset.
-
So could an elder explain this ruling a little?
-
Hey,
There are two types of abilities that last for more than one phase.
There are ongoing abilities that last until the end of the current phase and then reactivate at the beginning of subsequent phases as long as they remain in play. These are Artifacts (and covenants/curses used as artifacts), Fortresses, Sites, some "while set-aside" effects and the "while placed effect on some cards with place abilities. Because they reactivate at the beginning of each phase, they are always activated on the current phase and thus can always be interrupted or negated by a card that tries to target them.
And there are regular ongoing abilities that only activate once but whose duration extends beyond the end of the phase in which it is activated. This would be abilities that include phrases like "until end of game" or "while this character remains in play" or "until discarded." It also include Restrict abilities that default to lasting one round. These abilities become CBN as soon as the phase during which they initially activated ends.
Tschow,
Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly
-
This still doesn't make sense, because now Satan's Seat doesn't affect Simon then, why would'nt the effect be negated during the phase if they were negated? Because that ruling doesn't make sense to me.
-
This still doesn't make sense, because now Satan's Seat doesn't affect Simon then, why would'nt the effect be negated during the phase if they were negated? Because that ruling doesn't make sense to me.
Reread his post, he was saying that abilities that are ongoing but completed in a previous phase (like Simon) are effectively CBN in any phase after the one they activated in. If you don't negate it during that battle and he survives, while he remains in play the protection is CBN.
If Satan's Seat were active (and working) when he entered battle, the effect would be negated as normal. It just can't do it after that phase (just like any other card).
-
I'm still saying it doesn't make sense. I'm asking for an explaination of why 'While in play' abilities are not continuous (or at least if the Ability is Continuous why is it not treated as such?
-
I'm still saying it doesn't make sense. I'm asking for an explaination of why 'While in play' abilities are not continuous (or at least if the Ability is Continuous why is it not treated as such?
I have no idea what you're trying to ask, I'm sorry. I'll try to answer, but I'm not sure where you're trying to go with this.
"While in play" abilities are ongoing abilities. However, by game rule they are CBN starting in the phase after the one in which they activated.
If that didn't answer your question, can you give an example? If it's just that you don't like the rule, it's...the rule :dunno: Can't help you there.
-
There are ongoing abilities that last until the end of the current phase and then reactivate at the beginning of subsequent phases...some "while set-aside" effects and the "while placed effect on some cards with place abilities...
And there are regular ongoing abilities that only activate once but whose duration extends beyond the end of the phase..."while this character remains in play"
So you're saying that "while set-aside" works differently than "while in play"? Of course these are different locations, but it seems like their duration clauses should work on the same principle.
-
Here's an example:
Opponent plays Simon and it's effect completes.
*Next turn*
I go to battle w/ TSA and try to negate him this phase.
Why does this not work like I see it should? I would see it as this is a continuous effect (just like Protect is) and should be treated as such. What I am trying to do is understand the ruling, because this makes no sense right now. I'd understand it if the 'while in play' part was CBN as in, if I negate it, that would be only for this phase, and then the next phase it comes back as normal.
-
I'd understand it if the 'while in play' part was CBN as in, if I negate it, that would be only for this phase, and then the next phase it comes back as normal.
See, but it is just CBN. By game rule. You can't negate it 'for the phase' and have it turn back on. Game rule says it is CBN. There's really nothing else to add on that.
CBN means CBN.
-
I'm disputing the game rule and questioning the ruling. And currently this is an elder ruling that is fresh, not a game rule. There's a difference.
-
I'm disputing the game rule and questioning the ruling. And currently this is an elder ruling that is fresh, not a game rule. There's a difference.
It is not just an Elder ruling, this is an Elder telling you what the game rule is. I really don't know why you're continuing to go on about this. Unless the Elders change what the current game rule is, that's the rule.
-
That wasn't them telling a game rule, they just recently came up with that. It was not defined before, and so was the extent of FBTN Cards.
If you read the posts before on the first page, that will explain it.
-
That wasn't them telling a game rule, they just recently came up with that. It was not defined before, and so was the extent of FBTN Cards.
If you read the posts before on the first page, that will explain it.
Ah, now I see your confusion. The ruling on FBTN cards is new, that is correct.
However: The game rule that abilities that are ongoing but completed in a previous round being CBN has been around. The Elder was just telling you that was the rule. He was not adding it as a ruling just for this thread.
The second part is game rule, and has been. That's not in dispute, even if the FBTN ruling is being debated on their end.
-
Here's the thing, before they were ruled as continuous effects (the Protect not the while in play) so the Protect would be negated that phase by a FBTN Card then because the while in play is CBN it would start up again during the next phase.
Prof U seemed to say before the ruling was made that this would be how it would be ruled until a consensus was made and this is what Pol argues for too.
The reason why I'm questioning this was because SirNobody's statement seemed to counterdict itself when he agreed with Prof U but then the ruling seemed to state differently.
-
Here's the thing, before they were ruled as continuous effects (the Protect not the while in play) so the Protect would be negated that phase by a FBTN Card then because the while in play is CBN it would start up again during the next phase.
No, and that's the crux of what I'm trying to tell you. If it is CBN, it is CBN. The current ruling discussion is whether FBTN negates everything in play, but it still cannot negate CBN. That is game rule.
A "while in play" effect is CBN. Therefore, nothing (not even FBTN in the current ruling) would be able to negate it. Period.
It does not get 'negated for that phase' and then reactivate. It "Cannot be Negated".
Prof U's post said nothing about FTBN being able to overcome CBN, just that it can currently target cards not in battle due to the wording on the card. But just because I can hit something doesn't mean that I can affect it.
CBN. Is. CBN.
-
Hey,
There are ongoing abilities that last until the end of the current phase and then reactivate at the beginning of subsequent phases...some "while set-aside" effects and the "while placed effect on some cards with place abilities...
And there are regular ongoing abilities that only activate once but whose duration extends beyond the end of the phase..."while this character remains in play"
So you're saying that "while set-aside" works differently than "while in play"? Of course these are different locations, but it seems like their duration clauses should work on the same principle.
I added "while set aside" to that list at the last minute and shouldn't have. While set-aside functions like while in play, not like while placed. Thanks for pointing out my mistake.
I'm disputing the game rule and questioning the ruling. And currently this is an elder ruling that is fresh, not a game rule. There's a difference.
This actually isn't a "fresh" ruling. This is how it's been for a long time. Apparently there were some players including an elder or two who thought the rule was different, so the official statement was made to clear things up. The way FBTN interacts with placed enhancements has been ruled the same way for three years. The way FBTN interacts with "while in play" abilities has been ruled the same way since 2001.
Here's the thing, before they were ruled as continuous effects (the Protect not the while in play) so the Protect would be negated that phase by a FBTN Card then because the while in play is CBN it would start up again during the next phase.
That was never the correct ruling.
Tschow,
Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly
-
I'm not saying it would overcome CBN, I'm saying it would shut down a Protect that is while it's in play. Not that FBTN would destroy CBN.
I'm seeing 2 effects, 1 CBN the other is not. 1 is continueous and the other is a trigger. While in play is a trigger that is CBN the phase after it was activated. (Just like all triggers) the Protect is continueous and even though the while in play is CBN the Protect is not. The Protect can easily be negated by any card that would negate a Protect Ability or Character. This would be able to be negated no matter what phase it is in because it is not CBN.
This is what I see, it's just like with Deceving Spirit, his becoming a character is CBI no matter what, but not the rest of the Card.
-
I'm not saying it would overcome CBN, I'm saying it would shut down a Protect that is while it's in play. Not that FBTN would destroy CBN.
I'm seeing 2 effects, 1 CBN the other is not. 1 is continueous and the other is a trigger. While in play is a trigger that is CBN the phase after it was activated. (Just like all triggers) the Protect is continueous and even though the while in play is CBN the Protect is not. The Protect can easily be negated by any card that would negate a Protect Ability or Character. This would be able to be negated no matter what phase it is in because it is not CBN.
This is what I see, it's just like with Deceving Spirit, his becoming a character is CBI no matter what, but not the rest of the Card.
I'm sorry, but that's incorrect. The entire ability is CBN starting in the phase after it was activated. Not just the trigger.
So in the case of Simon the Zealot, the protection IS CBN. That's what we have been trying to tell you, and an Elder has confirmed.
I'm sorry, but there are not two different effects, only one being CBN. The whole thing is CBN. So you cannot stop it, even with a FBTN character with the current ruling.
-
The point of pushing the Character negate through territory was only for that. Right now, it doesn't make sense, because it's not 1 ability, it's 2 abilities worded like one.
-
The point of pushing the Character negate through territory was only for that. Right now, it doesn't make sense, because it's not 1 ability, it's 2 abilities worded like one.
You're missing the point: It is not the words "while in play" that are CBN. What is CBN is the continuous ability that is active "while in play".
Simon the Zealot (Di)
Type: Hero Char. • Brigade: Red/Purple • Ability: 7 / 4 • Class: None • Special Ability: Negate and discard Rome and a N.T. Idol. First Strike. Protect your hand and deck from opponents' cards while this Hero remains in play.
The bolded part is CBN starting in the phase after it was active. It is ONE ability. ONE. And, by game rule, it is CBN starting in the phase after it was active.
There is no reason to keep arguing this, because it has been ruled. An Elder has explained it to you, and how this has been the rule for some time. I'm very sorry, but you are incorrect in this.
-
I know, the problem is what effect it will cause to the game. It makes it easier to push it further to be just 'while in play' is CBN period, and what characters this ruling would effect making them unessisarily stronger.
-
I know, the problem is what effect it will cause to the game. It makes it easier to push it further to be just 'while in play' is CBN period, and what characters this ruling would effect making them unessisarily stronger.
Alright, I'm trying to understand...are you saying that you disagree with the game rule that is in place so that the (current, doubting it stays this way) Cap ruling would negate anything that has "while in play" to nerf their abilities a bit?
If that's the case, you're still going against game rule as it currently is, and you had been arguing with me that they are two different abilities and the protection must not be CBN, so I have no idea where you're coming from.
There is nothing to show that this (established) ruling that "while in play" is CBN will cause problems to the game...since it has been around a long while. The Cap ruling (as it stands) changes things a bit, but that doesn't affect other rules currently in place. There are no discrepancies right now that this ruling causes.
-
I'm assuming that sites that say "While occupied" aren't affected by this because site abilities are just standard continuous abilities that just activate the moment they are put into play so they can be negated at any time for that phase?
I'm just trying to understand the significance/difference of "while in play", "while set aside", and other "while..." abilities.
-
Just read Pol's comments on the first page, he was better at explaining it then I am Aparently.
-
Hey,
I'm not saying it would overcome CBN, I'm saying it would shut down a Protect that is while it's in play. Not that FBTN would destroy CBN.
I'm seeing 2 effects, 1 CBN the other is not. 1 is continueous and the other is a trigger. While in play is a trigger that is CBN the phase after it was activated. (Just like all triggers) the Protect is continueous and even though the while in play is CBN the Protect is not. The Protect can easily be negated by any card that would negate a Protect Ability or Character. This would be able to be negated no matter what phase it is in because it is not CBN.
This is what I see, it's just like with Deceving Spirit, his becoming a character is CBI no matter what, but not the rest of the Card.
Triggers are not abilities in and of themselves. They just modify other abilities. Abilities normally take effect when the card they are on activates. Triggers allow/cause the ability to take place at a later point in time. Triggers either have a fixed delay (i.e. instead of doing something now you might do it at the end of battle) or they can have a situational delay (i.e. instead of doing something now you might do it when your opponent draws a card). A situational delay trigger can never happen if the situation never comes up.
"While in play" is not an ability and it is not a trigger. It is a duration. All ongoing abilities have a duration. Most of the time ongoing abilities follow the default durations specified in the REG which is usually "until the end of the current phase." When we want a card with an ongoing ability to last longer (or shorter) than the default duration we specify on the card what duration the card has. "While in play" is such a specification, it states that instead of ending at the end of the current phase, the specified ability lasts while the character remains in play.
Tschow,
Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly
-
Under that definition, that only supports my Arguement that the ability should be able to be negated, just like how I can negate a TC Enhancement in territory, since the effect is a continueous effect (which according to game rules for other continueous effects) can be negated at any time during the game (unless they are CBI/CBN) vs. Triggers, which can't be stopped the Phase after because that would be very bad for the game, and abilities that are done completely (effects that don't continue to the next phase) are the types of effects that should be CBN starting the next phase.
-
Under that definition, that only supports my Arguement that the ability should be able to be negated, just like how I can negate a TC Enhancement in territory, since the effect is a continueous effect (which according to game rules for other continueous effects) can be negated at any time during the game (unless they are CBI/CBN) vs. Triggers, which can't be stopped the Phase after because that would be very bad for the game, and abilities that are done completely (effects that don't continue to the next phase) are the types of effects that should be CBN starting the next phase.
I'm sorry, but you really are incorrect, and you have had an elder point out why.
Your argument that it is the same as TC enhancements is not valid. TC enhancements are not all "while in play" abilities, which are defined by game rule as SirNobody described.
Simon the Zealot is different. After the phase he activated, his effect is continuous "while in play", and it does not activate in any other phase. It is just continuous. And because it completed in a previous phase, the game rule says that he can no longer be negated.
Seriously, there is nothing more to discuss. This is game rule. It has not changed, and an Elder has made it clear what the difference is. This is just the ruling.
-
Hey,
Under that definition, that only supports my Arguement that the ability should be able to be negated, just like how I can negate a TC Enhancement in territory, since the effect is a continueous effect (which according to game rules for other continueous effects) can be negated at any time during the game (unless they are CBI/CBN) vs. Triggers, which can't be stopped the Phase after because that would be very bad for the game, and abilities that are done completely (effects that don't continue to the next phase) are the types of effects that should be CBN starting the next phase.
Other cards that have "continuous effects" generally abide by the default duration of "until the end of the current phase." The game rule for their card type (Artifact, Site, Fortress) is what causes them to be active again in the next phase. They "reactivate" at the beginning of each phase they are active because they are Sites, Fortresses, or active artifacts.
The ability on Blue Tassels for example ("Protect all characters from capture abilities. Prevent Unholy Writ.") if it were on an enhancement that was played during the preparation phase somehow, would end at the end of the preparation phase. But it is on an artifact and not an enhancement, so when the preparation phase ends and the next phase begins the rules for artifacts causes the ability to "refresh" and last for another phase.
In effect, Artifacts, Sites, and Fortress have a separate activation and effect for each phase, so when you try to negate them, you negate their activation and effect in the current phase. You do not and cannot negate their activation or effect in any previous phase, because anything that happened in a previous phase cannot be negated.
A character with a "while this character remains in play" effect on the other hand, has only one activation (when the character enters battle). It does not "refresh" at the beginning of future phases, but rather the effect doesn't/didn't end after the previous phase so it's simply still in effect. So if, during a future battle you try to negate that character "just for the battle" you run into a problem: when you negate an effect you have to negate all of the effect, since the character has only one activation and one effect that persists over multiple phases, the effect it is having during battle is the same effect it had during the previous battle, you can't negate one without negating the other because they are one in the same. Since the effect from the previous battle is cannot be negated because it is from a previous phase, the effect on the current battle also has to be cannot be negated.
It would be a valid, alternative way of defining the rules to say that all abilities that have an effect over multiple phases "refresh" for each new phase and can be negated within any phase for that phase only. But that is not how redemption defines the rules, and has never been how redemption defines the rules. There are multiple ways that many, many rules could be handled. It's not that one way is necessarily wrong and the other is right, but rather one is simply the way we chose to rule and the other isn't.
Tschow,
Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly
-
My point is that the ruling doesn't fit the types of cards out there, nor previous rulings.
And this is different from other rulings elsewhere (Rulings that noted that Forts, Sites, LS's and many other card types don't reactivate when they're negated) that from what I saw was supported by Elders. That was namely for Forts and LS's.
-
Forts and LS's have abilities that function differently. Their ongoing abilities have the by-phase refresh.
-
That was challenged in another thread, with no one saying that it was wrong.