Cactus Game Design Message Boards

Redemption® Collectible Trading Card Game HQ => Official Rules & Errata => Ruling Questions => Topic started by: Captain Kirk on December 27, 2008, 03:22:54 AM

Title: DoN vs. I am Truth
Post by: Captain Kirk on December 27, 2008, 03:22:54 AM
If I have I am Truth active during battle phase, can my opponent negate I am Truth with Destruction or can it not be negated during that phase since it endows CBN status?

I am Truth - "Good enhancements with ignores in the special ability cannot be negated by evil cards."
Destruction of Nehustan - "Discard one active artifact in play.  Artifact's ability is negated."

Kirk
Title: Re: DoN vs. I am Truth
Post by: TheKarazyvicePresidentRR on December 27, 2008, 03:25:42 AM
Nothing protects it from a swift and painful death. It can be discarded.
Title: Re: DoN vs. I am Truth
Post by: BubbleBoy on December 27, 2008, 08:04:42 AM
But I believe this follows the rule that "cards that give CBN status CBN themselves." You could DoN it in a previous phase, though.
Title: Re: DoN vs. I am Truth
Post by: michael/michaelssword on December 27, 2008, 09:55:41 AM
I think you could discard it but it's SA still be active
Title: Re: DoN vs. I am Truth
Post by: YourMathTeacher on December 27, 2008, 11:29:46 AM
Interesting. There have been rulings that stated CBN status is given at the time a card is played and that it would not be dynamic. I agree that I am Truth can be discarded, but could a previously played "ignore" card have its CBN status removed? This would seem to be a case where it would (unless I am Truth was played as an enhancement).

So the real scenario is:

1. I am Truth active as an artifact.
2. RA and block
3. Hero uses an "ignore."
4. Blocker plays DoN to target I am Truth.
5. Blocker now wants to play an interrupt/negate on the "ignore."

Can DoN take away the CBN status of the "ignore" card? I would say that it cannot, since the "ignore" card was granted the ability to "not be negated by an evil card" which DoN is (indirectly). So I am Truth is discarded and cannot be used again, but the "ignore" card sticks, not allowing the Blocker to interrupt/negate the "ignore" card.

What say you?  ;D

Title: Re: DoN vs. I am Truth
Post by: EmJayBee83 on December 27, 2008, 12:41:05 PM
+1 YMT.

Cannot be negated status means the card cannot be negated even indirectly. There is nothing in the cannot be negated ignore that protects I am Truth from being discarded, however.
Title: Re: DoN vs. I am Truth
Post by: TheKarazyvicePresidentRR on December 27, 2008, 12:59:54 PM
Interesting. There have been rulings that stated CBN status is given at the time a card is played and that it would not be dynamic. I agree that I am Truth can be discarded, but could a previously played "ignore" card have its CBN status removed? This would seem to be a case where it would (unless I am Truth was played as an enhancement).

So the real scenario is:

1. I am Truth active as an artifact.
2. RA and block
3. Hero uses an "ignore."
4. Blocker plays DoN to target I am Truth.
5. Blocker now wants to play an interrupt/negate on the "ignore."

Can DoN take away the CBN status of the "ignore" card? I would say that it cannot, since the "ignore" card was granted the ability to "not be negated by an evil card" which DoN is (indirectly). So I am Truth is discarded and cannot be used again, but the "ignore" card sticks, not allowing the Blocker to interrupt/negate the "ignore" card.

What say you?  ;D


I agree you can't don it to remove the CBN status, but you can don it previous to it.
Title: Re: DoN vs. I am Truth
Post by: Gabe on December 27, 2008, 01:15:20 PM
I agree you can't don it to remove the CBN status, but you can don it previous to it.

Whether you DoN it prior to the enhancement being played or after doesn't matter.  I am Truth grants cannot be negated status and therefore itself cannot be negated (see Michael or Esau, the Hunter).  DoN will discard it, but the effect will be active until the end of the phase.
Title: Re: DoN vs. I am Truth
Post by: BubbleBoy on December 27, 2008, 01:21:06 PM
I believe he's saying that it would be negated during the battle phase if you DoN'd it in a previous phase, which I am inclined to agree with.
Title: Re: DoN vs. I am Truth
Post by: TheKarazyvicePresidentRR on December 27, 2008, 01:45:21 PM
I agree you can't don it to remove the CBN status, but you can don it previous to it.

Whether you DoN it prior to the enhancement being played or after doesn't matter.  I am Truth grants cannot be negated status and therefore itself cannot be negated (see Michael or Esau, the Hunter).  DoN will discard it, but the effect will be active until the end of the phase.
Hm, Does that apply to artifacts? If so ash pole just got even MORE teeth...
Title: Re: DoN vs. I am Truth
Post by: Gabe on December 27, 2008, 01:52:50 PM
Hm, Does that apply to artifacts? If so ash pole just got even MORE teeth...

I think those teeth have always been there, we just may not have realized it. ;)

Quote from: REG Other Abilities > Cannot be Negated>Special Conditions
Cards that  “cannot be negated” can never be interrupted, prevented, or negated.

It goes on to provide examples that include characters but that doesn't mean the statement is limited to only characters, it says cards so it would apply to all cards.
Title: Re: DoN vs. I am Truth
Post by: YourMathTeacher on December 27, 2008, 02:24:08 PM
Whether you DoN it prior to the enhancement being played or after doesn't matter.  I am Truth grants cannot be negated status and therefore itself cannot be negated (see Michael or Esau, the Hunter).  DoN will discard it, but the effect will be active until the end of the phase.

I'm not sure I understand how this can be true. Michael and Esau are different because they talk about enhancements played by them, therefore they would have to be in battle at the time the enhancement is played. If I am Truth is removed from play and negated, it can not grant CBN status to any card played after the removal, can it? The idea of CBN not being indirectly negated assumes that the card was played under the umbrella of a CBN at some point. If that umbrella is gone, the CBN-granting should be gone too. I think that any card played before DoN would not lose its CBN, but any card played after DoN should not be given CBN.

Clarification, please?  ???
Title: Re: DoN vs. I am Truth
Post by: Gabe on December 27, 2008, 03:27:05 PM
I think the first thing we have to establish is whether or not I am Truth can be negated.  I've already quoted the REG showing that "Cards that  “cannot be negated” can never be interrupted, prevented, or negated."  If they only meant characters or only enhancements it would specify only those card types, but instead they chose to use the brood term "cards" to apply to all card types in Redemption.  Esau and Mike are fine examples because they're probably much more common that the example we're looking at.

If that makes sense then continue to read on.  If it doesn't let me know and I'll elaborate.

Assuming we agree on the previous matter, where did the "umbrella" go if the ability wasn't negated?  The ability still lasts until the end of the phase.

Quote from: REG Instant Abilities > Discard or Remove > Default Conditions
Cards with ongoing abilities that are not negated continue until the end of the phase in which they are discarded or removed from battle (in the case of special abilities on characters and enhancements, unless specified otherwise), or discarded or removed from play (in the case of sites, artifacts, fortresses, lost souls, placed cards, etc…).
Title: Re: DoN vs. I am Truth
Post by: YourMathTeacher on December 27, 2008, 03:52:02 PM
So, basically, the ability to grant CBN is an ongoing ability that cannot be negated itself during the phase in which it is activated. Once Asherah Pole, Abel's Sacrifice, etc. have been activated in battle, the ability to grant CBN sticks regardless of what happens to them.

I can live with that.  ;D
Title: Re: DoN vs. I am Truth
Post by: BubbleBoy on December 27, 2008, 05:42:59 PM
:thumbup:
Title: Re: DoN vs. I am Truth
Post by: Captain Kirk on December 28, 2008, 01:24:40 AM
I thought this was the case, but my opponent and I wanted to check.  Thanks Gabe and company!

Kirk
Title: Re: DoN vs. I am Truth
Post by: TheKarazyvicePresidentRR on December 28, 2008, 05:51:28 AM
so its official any artifact that may give something cbn abilities is cbn itself?
Title: Re: DoN vs. I am Truth
Post by: BubbleBoy on December 28, 2008, 06:03:48 AM
Any card, yes.
Title: Re: DoN vs. I am Truth
Post by: JSB23 on December 28, 2008, 09:50:45 PM
so its official any artifact that may give something cbn abilities is cbn itself?

I don't I agree with this. A more accurate restatement would be that any artifact that has made something CBN has given that item CBN status for the remainder of the battle.

So, for example if you activate I Am Truth and then make an RA with a white hero, I can still block and play DoN prior to you playing an enhancement. If you then use an ignore it is not granted CBN status due to the I Am Truth that is sitting in your discard pile. If, however, I do not use DoN immediately and you play an ignore--that ignore is CBN when it is played and DoN'ing I Am Truth does not change that.

(EmJayBee83 posting as JSB23)
Title: Re: DoN vs. I am Truth
Post by: BubbleBoy on December 28, 2008, 10:29:03 PM
Alright, any ability that provides CBN status is CBN itself, okay? It's in the REG.
Title: Re: DoN vs. I am Truth
Post by: STAMP on December 28, 2008, 11:24:55 PM
Once a card receives CBN status it retains it until the end of the phase.


Another example would be if I blocked with King Zedekiah which gives Dungeon of Malchiah CBN status.  If King Zed is discarded but then I use Unknown Nation to bring in another brown EC and play DoM, it is still CBN.


Title: Re: DoN vs. I am Truth
Post by: Gabe on December 28, 2008, 11:26:48 PM
I don't I agree with this...
(EmJayBee83 posting as JSB23)

Matt, if you don't agree could you explain why the previous quotes from the REG are wrong?  I'm open to correction.
Title: Re: DoN vs. I am Truth
Post by: YourMathTeacher on December 28, 2008, 11:35:30 PM
I think the confusion is caused by the CBN-granting card's disposal prior to a relevant card being played. To put it into JSB (aka MJB) scenario:

1. RA with hero
2. Block with King Zed (whose ongoing SA is to make DoM CBN)
3. Angel of the Lord King Zed
4. Unknown Nation a new brown EC
5. Play Dungeon of Malchiah

To JSB (MJB) - Is DoM CBN? The SA of King Zed has not been negated and therefore remains until the end of the Battle Phase.

The argument for CBN-granting cards is that they cannot be negated themselves, otherwise KoT would negate Michael's SA. So if the CBN-granting ability CBN, it remains until the end of the Battle Phase.
Title: Re: DoN vs. I am Truth
Post by: EmJayBee83 on December 29, 2008, 10:37:05 AM
I don't I agree with this...
(EmJayBee83 posting as JSB23)

Matt, if you don't agree could you explain why the previous quotes from the REG are wrong?  I'm open to correction.

I don't disagree with the quote from the REG, it is the interpretation that I find to be somewhat lacking. ;)

The REG quote deals with "Cards with ongoing abilities."  The ability to confer CBN status is not an on-going ability, however. The REG has SA broken into three general categories--Instant, Ongoing, and Other. Most (if not all) of the CBN conferring cards (including I Am Truth) are specifically listed under "Other" and not "Ongoing."

I believe conferring CBN is a triggered not an on-going ability. As such, if I Am Truth is not in play when an ignore is played, the ignore does not get CBN status.

To JSB (MJB) - Is DoM CBN? The SA of King Zed has not been negated and therefore remains until the end of the Battle Phase.

The SA of King Zed is not on-going so it does not need to be negated. The fact is that in the sequence given above King Zed was never available to grant the mystery of CBN status unto Dungeon of Malchiah, so DoM is not CBN.

At least that is how I think it works.
Title: Re: DoN vs. I am Truth
Post by: Gabe on December 29, 2008, 11:04:18 AM
Thanks for that explanation, Matt.  I see what you mean.  :)

I guess it really depends on whether or not the ability is ongoing or triggered.  If the granting of "cannot be negated" status is triggered when a condition is met (the playing of an enhancement for example) then I could see how it wouldn't work if the card granting the ability was removed from play before the condition is met. 

I personally don't believe that to be the case but I also wouldn't bet the farm on my interpretation.  ;)
Title: Re: DoN vs. I am Truth
Post by: YourMathTeacher on December 29, 2008, 11:14:11 AM
The ability to confer CBN status is not an on-going ability, however.

This is really the point that needs to be addressed. The REG Glossary for "Special Abilities" says this:

There are two types of special abilities that define how a special ability is carried out: Ongoing Abilities and Instant Abilities.

Personally, I think the "Other" category was created to address specific issues with CBN and */*, but I could be wrong. If there is a third category that does not fall under the other two, then the REG needs to be updated since it contradicts itself.

I would argue that "triggered" abilities still fall under either instant or ongoing, based on what they do. For instance, "If used by a Babylonian, discard a hero," has a trigger, but it is an Instant ability. Likewise, "If used by Michael, enhancements cannot be negated," has a trigger, but it is an ongoing ability since it can be used more than once at any time during the battle.

I am Truth and King Zedekiah have stipulations that might count as "triggers." There is no "if used by" trigger. These appear to be general abilities that activate in battle and just sit around waiting for someone to need them, much like immunity.

_______________________________________________

We will ultimately need a PTB decision to edit/clarify the REG so that the apparent contradiction about how many types of Special Abilities is addressed.
Title: Re: DoN vs. I am Truth
Post by: Gabe on December 29, 2008, 11:21:02 AM
I might be willing to bet the farm on YMT's explanation though.  Well said.  :)
Title: Re: DoN vs. I am Truth
Post by: STAMP on December 29, 2008, 11:35:15 AM
CBN is CBN.  It can be instant, ongoing, or triggered.  For ongoing or triggered, once turned on in a phase it cannot be turned off until the end of the phase.
Title: Re: DoN vs. I am Truth
Post by: EmJayBee83 on December 29, 2008, 01:20:21 PM
I understand where y'all are coming from, but it still seems strange to me that one can bend space and time and use an artifact or a character that has been discarded to grant an enhancement CBN status.
Title: Re: DoN vs. I am Truth
Post by: TheKarazyvicePresidentRR on December 29, 2008, 01:41:15 PM
I take it you don't like negates then? ;)
Title: Re: DoN vs. I am Truth
Post by: EmJayBee83 on December 29, 2008, 01:43:56 PM
I take it you don't like negates then? ;)

To be honest, I'm really not all that crazy about negates that don't activate until well after they have been placed in the discard pile. Just a hangup I have.  ;)
Title: Re: DoN vs. I am Truth
Post by: YourMathTeacher on December 29, 2008, 03:50:52 PM
I can't do anything about your "hangups"  ;D , but as a final consolation consider Melchizedek:

Protect all Heroes in play from capture, conversion and poison abilities.

If I have a hero banded to Melchizedek, then they both are protected. If Melchizedek gets discarded during the battle, wouldn't the other hero still be protected? The fact that the big M is in the discard pile wasting away does not change the fact that his ability was activated and remains activated. Just his one-time presence in battle provided the protection, as long as that protection is not negated.

That is the basic premise here, with the added bonus that the CBN-granting SA cannot be negated either.

Title: Re: DoN vs. I am Truth
Post by: EmJayBee83 on December 29, 2008, 10:59:07 PM
I can't do anything about your "hangups"  ;D , but as a final consolation consider Melchizedek:

The Melchizedek example you provided doesn't really console me, as I don't think it is the same situation at all. I have no problems with an enhancement being CBN (a hero being protected) if it is played prior to I am Truth (Melchizedek) getting discarded.

What I am having a hard time wrapping my mind around would be a case where...

1) Cherubim enters battle banded to Melchizedek.
2) Melchizedek gets CM'ed
3) EC blocks
4) Three Angels is played on Cherubim and bands in Michael and Gabriel from hand.

Suddenly, Michael and Gabriel are protected from capture and conversion, even though neither was ever in play at the same time as Melchizedek was.

I understand mechanically why this works. It still, however, strikes me as counter-intuitive because I don't think of Melchizedek's ability as an on-going ability. I picture it as an instantaneous SA that confers an on-going SA to other cards.
Title: Re: DoN vs. I am Truth
Post by: YourMathTeacher on December 30, 2008, 12:12:26 AM
OOPS! Your example was what I meant, but I got myself confused.  ;D

I am right there with you. Earlier in this thread I was the one who was ready to defend what your intuition is trying to convince you. Gabe had to go and bring up the mechanics that you are referring to. I am compelled to follow the mechanics for no other reason than consistency.

However, if you can find a way to override the mechanics, then I will gladly bring in the reinforcements. We'll have Gabe outflanked.
Title: Re: DoN vs. I am Truth
Post by: STAMP on December 30, 2008, 11:40:57 AM
What I am having a hard time wrapping my mind around would be a case where...

1) Cherubim enters battle banded to Melchizedek.
2) Melchizedek gets CM'ed
3) EC blocks
4) Three Angels is played on Cherubim and bands in Michael and Gabriel from hand.

Suddenly, Michael and Gabriel are protected from capture and conversion, even though neither was ever in play at the same time as Melchizedek was.

No, this does not occur.  Considering the rulebook:

Quote from: rulebook
Concerning Target for Special Abilities

When you choose a target for a special ability that target cannot change.

If a special ability is prevented, and the prevent is later negated, then you can select a target for the ability. It never targeted in the first place, so there is no change in targets.

If a dominant is played that was intended to target a certain card, it may be picked up if the intended target is no longer available due to the effect of another card. It never made the actual targeting, since the target was never really available. So, there is no true change of targets.

If a non-dominant ability is activated and an available, legal target is selected, then that target cannot change. If the ability is interrupted, and the target is removed, then a second target cannot be selected.

Although the protection is ongoing, targets are established when the SA is activated.  In your scenario, Michael and Gabriel were not targeted with the protection.  However, since the protection was not negated Cherubim will retain the protection.


For CBN in the cases that have been mentioned, the targets that are established when the SA is activated are triggered targets.


Title: Re: DoN vs. I am Truth
Post by: YourMathTeacher on December 30, 2008, 01:46:45 PM
This seems to be contradictory. The whole premise of the CBN-granting scenario is that the SA is ongoing throughout the Battle Phase whether the card with the SA was present or not. Protect is definitive as an ongoing ability, so why would this be different?

If I am Truth can confer postmortem CBN to cards, then Michael and Gabriel are protected for the exact same reason. If Michael and Gabriel are not protected, then IaT can not give CBN status to cards played after IaT has been DoN'ed.

I think we need a final ruling here, because I am getting very confused (not that anyone should be surprised). Every once in a while I see the ghostly blue image of "Bryon" in the Who's Online section, but then I splash water on my face and it is gone.
Title: Re: DoN vs. I am Truth
Post by: EmJayBee83 on December 30, 2008, 03:00:12 PM
First, I just want to say I am glad I am not the only one confused on this point.

Although the protection is ongoing, targets are established when the SA is activated.  In your scenario, Michael and Gabriel were not targeted with the protection.  However, since the protection was not negated Cherubim will retain the protection.

What if Melchizedek were not CM'ed and was still in battle when Gabriel and Michael were banded in? Would they be protected or not?
Title: Re: DoN vs. I am Truth
Post by: Gabe on December 30, 2008, 03:37:24 PM
Here's an example that I think will help us understand that the protection lasts for all characters:

I rescue with Seraphim banded to Jacob banded to CotH.  My opponent played CM on CotH.  I've being blocked by a big fish (12/12) so I have initiative.  I play Three Angels and band in Gabriel and The Destroyer.  I think we all know and agree that the special ability of Gabriel and The Destroyer are still negated by CotH even though he's not in play.

The same principle applies to the example with Mel.
Title: Re: DoN vs. I am Truth
Post by: EmJayBee83 on December 30, 2008, 03:46:49 PM
Here's an example that I think will help us understand that the protection lasts for all characters:

I think we all agree that any protection in palce when Mel gets discarded will last for all characters. The question I have is whether Melchizedek's ability to confer such protection lasts for the remainder of the phase.

Quote
I rescue with Seraphim banded to Jacob banded to CotH.  My opponent played CM on CotH.  I've being blocked by a big fish (12/12) so I have initiative.  I play Three Angels and band in Gabriel and The Destroyer.  I think we all know and agree that the special ability of Gabriel and The Destroyer are still negated by CotH even though he's not in play.

The same principle applies to the example with Mel.

Just to clarify. It appears to me that you are disagreeing with STAMP and saying that in my example Melchizedek does provide protection to characters, even if he was discarded prior to those characters being put into play.

Am I interpreting your analogy correctly, Gabe?
Title: Re: DoN vs. I am Truth
Post by: Gabe on December 30, 2008, 03:50:31 PM
Am I interpreting your analogy correctly, Gabe?

Yes, if Mel's abilitty isn't negated the protection remains, including any Heroes added to play during the phase.
Title: Re: DoN vs. I am Truth
Post by: STAMP on December 30, 2008, 04:21:26 PM
While what you both are saying makes a lot of sense, it goes against what has been defined for targeting.  While protection is an ongoing ability, I just can't see it acquiring new targets on an ongoing basis.

Of course, what I've been saying about "cannot be negated" status does seem to target on an ongoing basis (i.e. enhancements played on Michael).

I guess we really need the PTB to weigh in, and possibly a revision of the targeting section in the REG.


Title: Re: DoN vs. I am Truth
Post by: Arch Angel on December 30, 2008, 10:39:59 PM
I don't really think Mel's targets actually change, though. His ability just targets any hero 'in Play'

As long as a Hero is 'in Play' is fulfills Mel's ability and is thus protected accordingly, whether Mel has been DCed or not.

I think it's the same with IaT, it doesn't change targets, but just allows any card that fulfills the requirements to gain CBN status whether IaT gets DCed or not.
Title: Re: DoN vs. I am Truth
Post by: Ken4Christ4ever on July 18, 2009, 07:45:21 PM
Did this ever get decided?!?
Title: Re: DoN vs. I am Truth
Post by: Kevin Shride on July 19, 2009, 09:42:54 AM
Protection is an ongoing ability, so taking a card with a protect ability out of play doesn't negate it.  That much is simple.

As far as DoN'ing I Am Truth, I would rule that I Am Truth is not an ongoing ability.  It is very much a triggered ability.  As such, if it is active and you play an ignore, it cannot be negated, even if you play DoN before you try to negate it.  If it is active during the battle phase and you play DoN on I Am Truth prior to the ignore card being played, the ignore CAN be negated.

Kevin Shride
Title: Re: DoN vs. I am Truth
Post by: STAMP on July 19, 2009, 12:04:41 PM
Protection is an ongoing ability, so taking a card with a protect ability out of play doesn't negate it.  That much is simple.

As far as DoN'ing I Am Truth, I would rule that I Am Truth is not an ongoing ability.  It is very much a triggered ability.  As such, if it is active and you play an ignore, it cannot be negated, even if you play DoN before you try to negate it.  If it is active during the battle phase and you play DoN on I Am Truth prior to the ignore card being played, the ignore CAN be negated.

Kevin Shride

I disagree.  Cannot-be-negated sticks to the table.  If I band Unlcean Spirit to King Zed followed by my opponent playing Angel of the Lord on King Zed, I can still play Dungeon of Malchiah and it cannot be negated.
Title: Re: DoN vs. I am Truth
Post by: BubbleBoy on July 19, 2009, 12:16:08 PM
I've actually done that before. ;D

My thoughts on this matter are that as soon as I Am Truth is activated, either as an artifact or as an enhancement, its ability sticks throughout the current phase regardless of discard or negation, because it can't be negated.
Title: Re: DoN vs. I am Truth
Post by: NWJosh on July 19, 2009, 12:30:26 PM
I too would lean on the side of "can't be negated" lasts for an entire phase.  So DoN would have to be played pre-battle phase for ignore cards to be negated.
Title: Re: DoN vs. I am Truth
Post by: The Guardian on July 19, 2009, 02:30:10 PM
+1 w/ STAMP, BB and Josh.

Enhancements with "ignores" in the ability CBN during any phase in which I am Truth was at some point active.
Title: Re: DoN vs. I am Truth
Post by: crustpope on July 19, 2009, 10:24:40 PM
"Cannot be negated, cannot be negated" and anything that grants CBN status CBN itself, In this way "I Am Holy can be Discarded but it cannot be negated during that phase.  Its in the ten commandments.  Read it, live it, love it.   
 
SimplePortal 2.3.3 © 2008-2010, SimplePortal