Cactus Game Design Message Boards

This is a question I've had for a little while now, and I can't come to a satisfactory answer. I'm sure there IS an answer, but I just can't be sure.

Is it ever too late to negate?

I recently discovered (correct me if I'm wrong) that one of the many benefits of the Armor of God is that a FBTN Evil Character, like King of Tyrus, won't get the chance to negate it. The Breastplate of Righteousness allows you to negate Characters from X brigades, so King of Tyrus gets prevented before he comes into battle to negate you. King of Tyrus can't use his negate ability because that ability was prevented before he could use it.

But then I started to think: how do you treat certain abilities when they're negated? If you negate a draw or search ability, do you shuffle the drawn/searched for cards back into the deck? What about if you negate a reveal ability?
Then just today Watchman492 asked me a related question: if an ability that brings other cards into battle is negated, do the special abilities of the cards brought into battle resolve or not, and do they stay in battle or not? Watchman had the acumen to ask a particularly messy one.

At present, this would be hypothetical.
Let's say we have this Hero who has an interrupt-draw X-play next ability.
This character draws an interrupt-draw X-play next Enhancement and plays it.
Now lets say, for the sake of making this as messy as possible, he draws a second interrupt-draw X-play next Enhancement and plays it as well.
Now lets say he draws some Enhancement that makes him immune to Humans and plays it
Now he gets blocked by Centurion at Jerusalem- negate non-Roman Characters. (Let's assume our Hero isn't Roman.)
...so now what?
Surely, the Hero's draw must be negated, but are the Enhancements also negated? Not only have they been played, but they've resolved, and nothing is negating them, only the card that brought them into battle. Does that mean they are treated as if they were never put in battle at all?
Now, the way I understand it, even if a card leaves battle (The Angel Under the Oak, The Angel with the Secret Name, The Angel of the Winds), its special ability activates and resolves by virtue of its entering into battle at all. By that logic, even if the Hero is negated, the draws and plays on the Enhancements must resolve, and our Hero would be immune to Centurion. But what about the cards that the Hero drew with his own ability? If negated draw abilities shuffle the drawn cards back into the deck, does that mean the first Enhancement gets shuffled? Do they all get shuffled?
What actually happens here?

play abilities are cbi so the cards drawn may be put back but the immunity would stick

Play abilities are CBI, but the enhancements played by them can still be negated. Since the drawing of the first ITB + draw + play next was negated, it would be cascade negated. The play part of it is CBI, but the draw isn't. Since the second ITB + draw + play was also drawn by the ability of the first, which was negated by the negation of the first draw, it would also be cascade negated. The same would apply to the immunity, so I think it should be negated. I don't think the immunity would stick. I could be wrong though.

Play abilities are CBI, so all cards played by Play abilities stay in battle.  The only thing that is negated in this scenario is the Draw ability of the hero, but any cards drawn by the hero that were played via Play abilities stay in play.

So the consensus is that it's a cascade negate and none of the GE enhancements get resolved?

Nope.  Play abilities are CBI - they can't be cascade negated.  The only ability that would be negated is the hero's Draw ability, and the only cards that would go back to the top of deck are those that weren't played by a Play ability.

You can't cascade negate the play ability.  But it's unclear whether you can (partially) cascade-negate a card played by a play ability.

From the REG:

If a draw ability is negated:
- Return the drawn cards in their previous order to the deck (if this cannot be done, shuffle the drawn cards together and return them to the previous location)
- If a drawn card was already played, it is cascade-negated prior to being returned to deck
- If any effect on a drawn card that was already played cannot be cascade-negated (due to being cannot be interrupted or cannot be negated in whole or in part), the card is not returned to deck and it remains played

Does the 3rd bullet mean the card is not negated at all, or everything that can be negated is negated?

I'm going to confer with other Elders but my first impression is that everything that is negatable is negated.

This doesn't make sense to me.  The hypothetical hero in this instance has a Draw ability and a Play ability.  Play abilities are CBI, so Centurion at Jerusalem can only negate the hero's Draw ability.  And since Play abilities are CBI, any card played by a Play ability won't be returned to deck, even if the hero drew it with his Draw ability.

From the REG:

Quote

If a draw ability is negated:
- If any effect on a drawn card that was already played cannot be cascade-negated (due to being cannot be interrupted or cannot be negated in whole or in part), the card is not returned to deck and it remains played

Does the 3rd bullet mean the card is not negated at all, or everything that can be negated is negated?

The REG needs updated - that 3rd bullet point is incorrect.  I've been arguing this since this thread, but to no avail. 

Either Play abilities are CBI or they're not.  Every other CBI ability in the game can't be negated directly or indirectly; why are Play abilities an exception, and a crazy complex one at that?  I can't even imagine trying to explain bullet point 3 from that REG quote to a new player, much less one that I just said "Play abilities cannot be interrupted" to.

I don't think I was quite clear in my answer, but I think I'm agreeing with you guys.

Claudia bands to ET. Play Reach, draw 3, play next Abe's Servant to Ur (one of the 3 cards drawn by Reach).

End result is Claudia banded to ET in a FBTNB battle with Reach and Abe's Servant in battle and the other two cards drawn by Reach back on top of deck.

ET's play is CBI so Reach stays on the table. Reach's draw is negated so 2 cards go back to deck, but since Reach's play is CBI, Abe's Servant stays on the table. Is that what we're all saying?

Yes, that's how I'm seeing it.

Quote from: Gabe on July 26, 2016, 02:39:22 PM

I agree with this because Abe's Servant cannot negate itself the special ability remains active.

I'm not sure Abe's Servant tries to negate itself here?  It stays in battle because it was played via a Play ability - there's no ability that is trying to cascade-negate Abe's Servant, because Play abilities (being CBI) cannot be cascade-negated.

Abe's Servant is trying to indirectly negate itself by negating the draw that drew it.

Quote from: RedemptionAggie on July 26, 2016, 02:18:45 PM

And that's what I've said here - the played drawn cards remain played (because they were played by play abilities), but negated.

Why would the played drawn cards in this scenario be negated?  Centurion at Jerusalem only negates heroes, and all the cards played via Play abilities are enhancements.

Because negating a draw cascade-negates the drawn cards if already played.  Or as much as they can if they're all or partially CBI/N.  At least that's my interpretation of the 2nd and 3rd bullet points in what I posted earlier.

I agree with the scenarios posted by Guardian and Gabe, but that's less complex because the negate targets both the draw and the next card directly.

Using Gabe's scenario, what if instead of Midianite Attack, it was Swift Horses (Gold) to interrupt Trapped in Cleverness, draw and play Seven Years of Famine?  Does negating the draw negate Trapped in Cleverness indirectly?

Seven Years of Famine: If used by a Genesis character, place in your territory for 7 turns: Negate draw and ignore abilities. During each player's upkeep, if their hand is 7 or more, they must discard 1.

Trapped in Cleverness won't be indirectly negated, because it was played by a Play ability after it was drawn.  It can't be indirectly negated in any way with respect to the Draw ability that drew it.  CBI is CBI.

Isn't it just the play ability that is CBI, not every card played by a play ability? The way I understand what people have been saying, Trapped in Cleverness would stay on the table, because the play ability that played it is CBI, but the ability of Trapped in Cleverness itself can be and is still negated.

Only the playing of the card is CBI. That does not grant CBI to the ability on the card itself.

What an ugly syllogism of rules. The only way a card would stop working because you negated it being drawn is if it goes back to deck and fizzles. If the card stays out and is not being negated directly, why would negating the card that drew it shoot a random negate dart at a card still in battle?

Because going back into the deck and fizzling is not what happens. Cards from a negated draw aren't interrupted before moving back to the deck, they are negated. Every card that comes from a negated draw ability gets a negate dart shot at it before attempting to move it back to its original location. In the given example, the only thing not completely straight forward is the CBI part of the play ability keeps the negated card in play instead of moving it back to the deck.

Yeah, why?

From the REG: "If a drawn card was already played, it is cascade-negated prior to being returned to deck"

Yeah, why?

Forgive me if I answer your question with a question, but why not?

I'm not sure I understand how this situation is unintended or complicated. In your opinion, what would be a less complicated way of resolving these situations?

everything that happened to TiC before is effectively CBI, because the Play ability is CBI.

This is the part I don't quite get. How does the CBI of the play ability apply retroactively to everything that card did in the past? Based on my understanding of Play abilities, the one and only thing CBI about it is the placing of the card on the table. We agree it doesn't extend forward and make the card played CBI, why do you say it extends backward?

That's not how it works. It doesn't automatically make other abilities CBI. It makes it stay on the table, but the draw ability is still negated, but the card is unable to be returned to deck. There is the principle in Redemption. If you can't do everything that the ability says, do as much as you can.

This is the part I don't quite get. How does the CBI of the play ability apply retroactively to everything that card did in the past? Based on my understanding of Play abilities, the one and only thing CBI about it is the placing of the card on the table. We agree it doesn't extend forward and make the card played CBI, why do you say it extends backward?

Because going backwards involves backing the truck going back through a brick wall a CBI Play ability.

Yes exactly, which is why the card remains on the table instead of being moved back to the deck. That still doesn't explain why it isn't negated though.

It isn't negated because nothing is negating it.

The two schools of thought here seem to be this:

1) When a card drawn by a draw ability is played by a play ability, it cannot be cascade negated. When the draw is negated, since the card can't be returned to deck because it's play is CBI. It can't be returned to deck, so the draw can't be undone, so it's not negated.

2) When a card drawn by a draw ability is played by a play ability, it can be cascade negated. Since when the draw ability is negated, you first attempt to negate any drawn cards that have been played then attempt to return them to the top of deck. You try to do as much as you can, so you negate the card, but it remains in play.

Correct?

I would tend toward option 2.

It is being cascade negated by the negation of the ability that drew it.

Ok, I've found the problem.  We are quoting the Draw entry in the REG but ignoring the Play entry. 

The Draw entry (relevant portion):
Special Conditions
● If a draw ability is negated:
○ Return the drawn cards in their previous order to the deck (if this cannot be done, shuffle the
drawn cards together and return them to the previous location)
○ If a drawn card was already played, it is cascade-negated prior to being returned to deck
○ If any effect on a drawn card that was already played cannot be cascade-negated (due to being
cannot be interrupted or cannot be negated in whole or in part), the card is not returned to deck
and it remains played

The Play entry (relevant portion):
Special Conditions
● All play an enhancement abilities cannot be interrupted.

*****

Looking at the two entries above, I can see some ambiguity, which kram has correctly identified in his post, because the Draw entry makes no mention of cards played by Play abilities.  Ambiguity is bad, because it leads to disagreements like this thread. 

However, ambiguity is also an opportunity to continue the Elders' push to streamline and simplify the rules.  The entry for Draw needs to address cards drawn by a Draw ability and then played by a Play ability. 

The two schools of thought here seem to be this:

1) When a card drawn by a draw ability is played by a play ability, it cannot be cascade negated. When the draw is negated, since the card can't be returned to deck because it's play is CBI. It can't be returned to deck, so the draw can't be undone, so it's not negated.

2) When a card drawn by a draw ability is played by a play ability, it can be cascade negated. Since when the draw ability is negated, you first attempt to negate any drawn cards that have been played then attempt to return them to the top of deck. You try to do as much as you can, so you negate the card, but it remains in play.

Let's be honest:  option 1 is so much simpler.  "Cascade-negate" is a complex term that should be avoided at all costs.  And let's be even more honest:  almost all situations where cards are drawn via a Draw ability, and then later enter play, and later still the Draw ability is negated, arise from the Draw X/Play Next abilities.  So all that crazy verbiage about "cascade negation" will almost never apply.

And that's not even addressing the potential issue with the REG wording where the cards to be returned to deck are cascade-negated BEFORE they are returned to deck.  Why aren't they cascade-negated WHEN or AFTER they are returned to deck?  Shouldn't the principle be the same as Devourer, etc.?  Cards can't be indirectly negated until they are removed from play.  If GEs are somehow protected from discard, Devourer can't indirectly negate them.  Same principle should apply here.  Rules get more consistent and simpler at the same time.   Win win.

Yes