Cactus Game Design Message Boards
Redemption® Collectible Trading Card Game HQ => Official Rules & Errata => Ruling Questions => Topic started by: LordZardeck on February 08, 2012, 04:14:37 PM
-
I always thought if a card that was FBTN was kicked out of the fight, because of him negating the ability that brought him in, his ability left with him.
-
No, that's not how it works with FBTN characters. If Armorbearer bands to Ira, Ira gets kicked out, but the FBTN status sticks.
Ira (Ki)
Type: Hero Char. • Brigade: Blue • Ability: 8 / 8 • Class: Warrior • Special Ability: Negate all special abilities on non-warrior class characters and non-weapon class enhancements. • Identifiers: OT Male Human, Fought Earthly Battle • Verse: II Samuel 20:26 • Availability: Kings booster packs (Rare)
Armorbearer (Wa)
Type: Hero Char. • Brigade: Green • Ability: 6 / 6 • Class: None • Special Ability: May band to any Hero who fought in an earthly battle. • Identifiers: Generic OT Male Human, Fought Earthly Battle • Verse: I Samuel 14:7 • Availability: Warriors booster packs (Uncommon)
-
In other words, the "negate all" ability would have to be negated (by a CBN/CBP card).
-
In other words, the "negate all" ability would have to be negated (by a CBN/CBP card).
LordZardeck's thought is that Ira would be indirectly negated when Armorbearer is negated.
-
But that doesn't make any logical sense. He's kicked out of the battle, his effect shouldn't be in battle anymore.
-
But that doesn't make any logical sense. He's kicked out of the battle, his effect shouldn't be in battle anymore.
So by that logic, The Angel Under the Oak's protection of Gideon shouldn't work, because when Gideon would enter battle, AUtO would not be in battle anymore.
-
But that doesn't make any logical sense. He's kicked out of the battle, his effect shouldn't be in battle anymore.
Once an ongoing ability enters battle, it stays unless it is negated. In this case, the hero was removed, but the ability was not negated.
-
But that doesn't make any logical sense. He's kicked out of the battle, his effect shouldn't be in battle anymore.
So by that logic, The Angel Under the Oak's protection of Gideon shouldn't work, because when Gideon would enter battle, AUtO would not be in battle anymore.
Actually I would argue yes. That ability SHOULDN'T work unless you are using AUtO as the hero to battle, protecting Gideon in your territory, or unless you have both AUtO and Gideon in battle. But I see what you are saying about ongoing abilities, even though I disagree that they should be so.
-
Ongoing abilities last until the end of the phase in which they've been played, unless they are negated. That's the rule.
-
But that doesn't make any logical sense. He's kicked out of the battle, his effect shouldn't be in battle anymore.
In the case of a FBTN character negating the ability that brought him into battle, the FBTN sticks to prevent loops. If Armorbearer bands to Ira, who negates Armorbearer, which indirectly negates himself, then he's not negating Armorbearer, and not indirectly negating himself, and so on.
-
But that doesn't make any logical sense. He's kicked out of the battle, his effect shouldn't be in battle anymore.
In the case of a FBTN character negating the ability that brought him into battle, the FBTN sticks to prevent loops. If Armorbearer bands to Ira, who negates Armorbearer, which indirectly negates himself, then he's not negating Armorbearer, and not indirectly negating himself, and so on.
This is what I've always heard. If the banding is negated, it's like the band never happened, except in the case of banding in a FBTN character, where the battle stays FBTN to prevent loops.
-
This is what I've always heard. If the banding is negated, it's like the band never happened, except in the case of banding in a FBTN character, where the battle stays FBTN to prevent loops.
This is the way I've always heard it explained as well.
-
This is what I've always heard. If the banding is negated, it's like the band never happened, except in the case of banding in a FBTN character, where the battle stays FBTN to prevent loops.
+1 This makes sense.
-
So the ruling is only about FBTN?
If a banding chain brings in a character that grants "protect heroes from discard CBN" and a FBTN character is brought in, does the protection remain even though the banded character is removed?
Or, more to the point, if a banding chain brings in a character that grants "protect heroes from discard" and a character "negates all banding", does the protection remain?
-
So the ruling is only about FBTN?
If a banding chain brings in a character that grants "protect heroes from discard CBN" and a FBTN character is brought in, does the protection remain even though the banded character is removed?
Or, more to the point, if a banding chain brings in a character that grants "protect heroes from discard" and a character "negates all banding", does the protection remain?
The former is easy. CBN protection remains for any heroes still in battle.
The latter gets us back to the original issue that surrounded Protection of Angels and Twelve-Fingered Giant. I don't know what the flavor of the month on that ruling is.
-
The latter gets us back to the original issue that surrounded Protection of Angels and Twelve-Fingered Giant. I don't know what the flavor of the month on that ruling is.
Well, I'm still uncomfortable with the Warrior's Spear on Spy ruling, but the fact is that we need to be consistent. If the ruling is that SAs that enter battle remain unless negated, then there should be no talk of "as if the band never happened."
-
The latter gets us back to the original issue that surrounded Protection of Angels and Twelve-Fingered Giant. I don't know what the flavor of the month on that ruling is.
Well, I'm still uncomfortable with the Warrior's Spear on Spy ruling, but the fact is that we need to be consistent. If the ruling is that SAs that enter battle remain unless negated, then there should be no talk of "as if the band never happened."
It's definitely a fine line, but I can see a small difference. For a negated band, a card gets kicked out after having activated and thus is indirectly negated. For Spy+WS, a special ability kicks WS out of battle before it activates but was never negated either directly or indirectly.
-
Correct. Indirect negation is still a thing, it just can't negate anything CBI and FbtN characters can't indirectly negate themselves.
-
Negating banding will negate any abilities on characters brought in by the band, assuming those abilities are not CBI/CBN. So in your first example, YMT, the Heroes are still protected, but in your second example, they are not.
EDIT: Missed the second page of the thread on my smartphone...I agree with STAMP and Pol.
-
This seems a bit more confusing to me... I understood it as if a Card leaves battle at all it's effect stays unless it's negated.
-
This seems a bit more confusing to me... I understood it as if a Card leaves battle at all it's effect stays unless it's negated.
I agree. That was the premise of the Warrior's Spear ruling. Where exactly did "indirect negation" come from anyway? Is it in the REG?
-
Neither Warrior's Spear nor the mechanism for having activated its ability is Negated.
In the case of Negating a band, you're undoing the character having been in battle in the first place unless they have a CBI ability.
-
wouldn't it just be easier if all ongoing abilities stay weather the character is still in battle or not ???
It is just confusing having so many ruling on different variations of the thing.
-
It's all consistent. Negated=doesn't happen. Not negated=happens.
-
It's all consistent. Negated=doesn't happen. Not negated=happens.
That was not the issue. "Indirect negation" is what is not defined, and would therefore be inconsistent. The band was negated, not the other abilities that entered battle. Since those abilities entered battle and were not negated, they should still be in effect, according to the Warrior's Spear ruling.
-
Was it indirectly negated? Yes. Therefore, it was negated.
-
Can someone explain to me what the Warrior's Spear ruling is?
-
If you have Warrior's Spear on Spy and use his withdraw ability upon attacking, WS still activates.
-
I am somewhat confused about indirect negating, can someone please explain indirect negating to me ???
-
I know this is off topic but why didn't they make Armorbearer Warrior Class?
-
I know this is off topic but why didn't they make Armorbearer Warrior Class?
He was printed in Warriors before Warrior Class was invented.
-
Yes, I am aware of that but they also reprinted him in Kings the set that introduces warrior class.
Searching "Armorbearer" in the REG only comes up with the Wa version, and I couldn't find him in the Kings expansion. Are you sure he was reprinted in Kings?
-
I'm about 95% sure that Armorbearer was never reprinted.
-
I'm about 95% sure that Armorbearer was never reprinted.
I'm 100% sure. There is no Kings Armorbearer.
-
I'm about 95% sure that Armorbearer was never reprinted.
I'm 100% sure. There is no Kings Armorbearer.
Well I'M 105% sure! bad at math. Beat that Alstad!
-
I'm about 95% sure that Armorbearer was never reprinted.
I'm 100% sure. There is no Kings Armorbearer.
Well I'M 105% sure! Beat that Alstad!
I'm 9001% sure.
-
i'm 1337 percent sure thread won ty
-
Beat that Alstad!
Done.
-
Beat that Alstad!
Done.
I support the correction. ;)
-
One does not meddle in the affairs of moderators...
-
Hey,
I am somewhat confused about indirect negating, can someone please explain indirect negating to me ???
If an ability activates as part of another ability and if the other ability is negated the first ability is indirectly negated. Negating the other ability means undoing everything that it did, one of the things it did was activate the first ability, so undoing it means undoing the first ability.
For example, character A has an ability to band and bands to character B. Character A's ability caused Character B to enter battle. Character B entering battle causes character B's ability to take effect. So character A's ability indirectly caused character B's ability to activate. Negating character A's ability undoes everything it caused. It caused character B to enter battle, so character B is moved out of battle. It indirectly caused character B's ability to take effect, so it undoes (i.e. indirectly negates) character B's ability.
Tschow,
Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly
-
It seems so simple, yet so complicated all at the same time ???
-
Hey,
I am somewhat confused about indirect negating, can someone please explain indirect negating to me ???
If an ability activates as part of another ability and if the other ability is negated the first ability is indirectly negated. Negating the other ability means undoing everything that it did, one of the things it did was activate the first ability, so undoing it means undoing the first ability.
For example, character A has an ability to band and bands to character B. Character A's ability caused Character B to enter battle. Character B entering battle causes character B's ability to take effect. So character A's ability indirectly caused character B's ability to activate. Negating character A's ability undoes everything it caused. It caused character B to enter battle, so character B is moved out of battle. It indirectly caused character B's ability to take effect, so it undoes (i.e. indirectly negates) character B's ability.
Tschow,
Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly
This makes sense to me, but it does not explain why if Character A bands to Character B, who happens to be a FBTN character and thus negates the band of Character A, that the remainder of the battle is FBTN. Why didn't negating the band "indirectly" negate the FBTN status of the battle too?
-
Because that would result in a loop...
-
Because that would result in a loop...
Thanks. I forgot about the "unless it will create an endless loop" rule. Is this in the REG?
-
Hey,
This makes sense to me, but it does not explain why if Character A bands to Character B, who happens to be a FBTN character and thus negates the band of Character A, that the remainder of the battle is FBTN. Why didn't negating the band "indirectly" negate the FBTN status of the battle too?
It's been ruled since 2000 that FBTN cannot indirectly negate itself. The ruling has always been that way to prevent infinite loop problems. It is possible that that rule is currently missing from the REG.
Thinking about it now, there my actually be a more general rule that an ability can never directly or indirectly negate itself. Can anyone think of an instance where a card negates itself?
Tschow,
Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly
-
Sinning Hand would be the first thing I think of, but that one specifically says the opponent can do something to negate it, so idk if that counts.
It would make FBTN wording even more streamlined if there was a game rule that cards can't negate themselves (since then you wouldn't need the "(except this ability)" clarification).
-
If cards couldn't negate themselves, then Sinning Hand and Trembling Demon would be inherently CBN. You'd also have weird situations like someone playing Reach, the opponent drawing a Negate off their Gifts, then being unable to Negate Reach because it would indirectly negate itself.
We've had the "no loops" rule for years, and I don't think it needs to be changed.
-
So the indirect negating always happens unless the ability that is being indirectly negated cannot be negated, or if the negating creates an endless loop. this makes so much sense now ;D
-
I don't get it.
;)