Cactus Game Design Message Boards
Redemption® Collectible Trading Card Game HQ => Official Rules & Errata => Ruling Questions => Topic started by: Josh on July 01, 2019, 12:38:45 PM
-
From what I've seen, it looks like it is? I think the "things granting CBN/I/P are CBN" is being conflated with other modifiers here.
I would agree that if an EE is played w/ Wicked LS in play and that EE gains "Regardless of protect abilities", you would not be able to later negate Wicked and claim that the original EE no longer happened regardless of Protection.
This is comparable to Instead abilities. If an ability is "Insteaded", you can't later negate the Instead ability and claim that the original ability (that never occurred because it was Insteaded) kicks in.
BUT, I see no reason why Wicked LS can't simply be negated ahead of time. Same way that Herod's Temple can simply be negated before it insteads AotL/CM.
Someone help me out here. What am I missing?
-
I think it is. From what I recall the rule is that things that grant a modifier CBN and its granting of regardless of protection is a modifier.
-
From my current understanding, it is CBN. Mostly based on this previous discussion thread:
http://www.cactusforums.com/ruling-questions/are-all-modifiers-cbn/msg584764/#msg584764 (http://www.cactusforums.com/ruling-questions/are-all-modifiers-cbn/msg584764/#msg584764)
-
A modifier is part of a special ability that modifies abilities or effects. Modifiers are not themselves abilities, but alter the behavior of abilities or effects. Whether a modifier targets an ability or effect depends on the type of modifier. If a modifier is granted to abilities or effects on other cards, the modifier persists through the end of the current phase by default. Since modifiers are not abilities, they cannot be targeted by interrupt, prevent or negate effects.
In part, that was updated so you can't get around a limit by making the ability CBN but leaving the modifier alone. When it only applied to the CBX modifiers, it made sense as a line in each one, but once you get beyond those it seemed simpler to just make it a difference between abilities and modifiers.
Herod's Temple can be negating because you're negating the ability, not the insteadiness of the ability. If you could negate just the insteadiness, then something like Nicanor (insteads a draw into a draw 1 for each player) becomes a cost-benefit ability that triggers after the draw, instead of a replacement.
-
Herod's Temple can be negating because you're negating the ability, not the insteadiness of the ability.
You could just as easily say "Wicked LS can be negated because you're negating the ability, not the regardless-of-protectioniness of the ability."
This is exactly the same as protection getting negated after that protection protected against something. Like, Elijah in battle, opponent plays Wrath of Satan, then later 3 Woes is played to negate Elijah. Nobody would argue that Elijah is discarded from Wrath.
Same should apply to Wicked LS. EE played regardless of protection, later 3 Woes negates Wicked. No one would argue that you go back in time and make the EE "not regardless of protection".
Nothing about Wicked's ability (or any regardless of protection ability) stands out to me as "this has to be CBN or else it will lead to convoluted situations that are better off being avoided". (Which was why we made CBN/I/P-granting-abilities CBN by definition.)
-
There's nothing else on Wicked to negate. Cards like Wicked LS, Thomas and Michael have special abilities that are just modifiers.
Instead modifies the replacement ability (not the triggering ability), so that it replaces instead of happening after, like a regular trigger.
-
There's nothing else on Wicked to negate. Cards like Wicked LS, Thomas and Michael have special abilities that are just modifiers.
Yeah, but the only reason we made the rule that "abilities granting CBP/I/N are CBN by definition" was because if they could be negated, it would lead to crazy complex scenarios that are better left untouched. Think Asaph playing Magnificat, opponent plays Bringing Fear.
That doesn't exist if Wicked LS is negated.
Instead modifies the replacement ability (not the triggering ability), so that it replaces instead of happening after, like a regular trigger.
Instead doesn't MODIFY the replacement ability; it IS a replacement ability.
And just like Wicked LS, there's nothing else on Herod's Temple to negate either. Herod's Temple is literally one large Instead ability.
The condition (NT human) and the cost of the Instead (discard f/ hand and top of deck) are irrelevant, and are not necessary to an Instead ability. At their core, Insteads always consist of two abilities: The replaced ability, and the replacing ability.
If you can't Prevent the ability of Wicked to modify "Discard a hero" with "Discard a hero regardless of protect abilities", I don't see how you can Prevent the ability of Herod's Temple to replace my opponent's AotL "Discard a NT human evil character" ability with "Discard a card of matching brigade from hand and the top X cards of deck".
-
Agreed with the OP. Granting something a different ability is hardly a modifier like granting something CB-X is. Whereas something that grants CB-X should not be able to be negated, I see no reason the same logic should apply to something like Wicked LS. The REG definition of modifier is more broad than I would've thought. Seems counter-intuitive. :P
-
It may just be me but the way I always looked at this is that modifiers simply alter the ability on another card by basically granting it text it wouldn't normally have thus changing it's functionality. Instead abilities are different in that it altogether replaces an ability not alter the functionality of an ability. Maybe I'm wrong on something logic wise but that at least let's me understand the differences.
As for why the granting of regardless of protection is a modifier and basically is CBN because of it I think it came down to it falling under the classification of what a modifier was when the card was released. There may be less hairy situations if it wasnt a modifier but we would also have to change the definition of what a modifier is and that may be easier said than done and not sure if it is necessary.
I'm not saying there is not merit to looking at it but at least in my case it is pretty intuitive to say "modifiers alter the functionality of an ability and modifiers are CBN" and wicked would fall under that meanwhile still saying instead abilities arent modifying an ability but replacing it altogether which is different and is thus not a modifier.
That may just be my opinion though all I'm really trying to say is that seems to me at least to be logical arguements in favor for and against of the status quo regarding the situation.
-
It may just be me but the way I always looked at this is that modifiers simply alter the ability on another card by basically granting it text it wouldn't normally have thus changing it's functionality. Instead abilities are different in that it altogether replaces an ability not alter the functionality of an ability. Maybe I'm wrong on something logic wise but that at least let's me understand the differences.
As for why the granting of regardless of protection is a modifier and basically is CBN because of it I think it came down to it falling under the classification of what a modifier was when the card was released. There may be less hairy situations if it wasnt a modifier but we would also have to change the definition of what a modifier is and that may be easier said than done and not sure if it is necessary.
I'm not saying there is not merit to looking at it but at least in my case it is pretty intuitive to say "modifiers alter the functionality of an ability and modifiers are CBN" and wicked would fall under that meanwhile still saying instead abilities arent modifying an ability but replacing it altogether which is different and is thus not a modifier.
That may just be my opinion though all I'm really trying to say is that seems to me at least to be logical arguements in favor for and against of the status quo regarding the situation.
I agree with what was said here.
-
A simple solution to avoid this issue with future cards is to make cards like Wicked have a CBx modifier. This wicked soul “is it CBN or not” question has been coming up since the card’s inception, and it’s overly confusing to new and older players alike, especially when I try to explain to someone that it’s kinda CBN. This kind of ambiguity with modifiers and card abilities should not be happening but should be made as simple as possible for even a novice player to understand how they work.
:2cents:
-
A simple solution to avoid this issue with future cards is to make cards like Wicked have a CBx modifier. This wicked soul “is it CBN or not” question has been coming up since the card’s inception, and it’s overly confusing to new and older players alike, especially when I try to explain to someone that it’s kinda CBN. This kind of ambiguity with modifiers and card abilities should not be happening but should be made as simple as possible for even a novice player to understand how they work.
:2cents:
Redemption, needing a PHD in the game to play! ;) Still love it though!
-
Redemption, needing a PHD in the game to play! ;) Still love it though!
I'll be starting a Redemption PhD program soon. Tuition and fees TBD... 8)
-
Redemption, needing a PHD in the game to play! ;) Still love it though!
I'll be starting a Redemption PhD program soon. Tuition and fees TBD... 8)
I've spent enough time wrestling with the rules that I'm probably qualified to teach.
-
Redemption U now has a wrestling program?!?!?!?! right on!!!
Godspeed,
Mike