Author Topic: Michael + Angels Sword vs Uzzah (Read 9175 times)

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #25 on:** February 15, 2013, 02:55:11 PM »

That's a subtle but HUGE change to ItB. It used to say the "last enhancement played in the current battle if it was played by opponent."

FWIW, I like the change since it can stop cards like Uzzah, but that is definitely not the way it has always been.

Gabe · « **Reply #26 on:** February 15, 2013, 03:07:57 PM »

Quote from: YourMathTeacher on February 15, 2013, 02:55:11 PM

That's a subtle but HUGE change to ItB. It used to say the "last enhancement played in the current battle if it was played by opponent."

FWIW, I like the change since it can stop cards like Uzzah, but that is definitely not the way it has always been.

I agree. In fact I was in the process of posting how Striking Herod would not work, looking up the reason why from the REG, when I found that the it does work. I believe this is an implication of the change we made last year to ITB.

The Guardian · « **Reply #27 on:** February 15, 2013, 04:07:45 PM »

Just as a point of clarification...

Remember that you still must have initiative in order to play an ITB card. In most cases, an "Uzzah" block would not transfer initiative, but in the case of Angel's Sword, the player does get to play an enhancement (Commissioned, anyone?

) I believe the same would be true for a purple King if Throne of David was in play.

Redoubter · « **Reply #28 on:** February 15, 2013, 10:02:30 PM »

First, I was not aware of that change to ITB, and as YMT points out, that is a major change, but I'm not sure if it in the end affects this case. See below.

Quote from: Gabe on February 15, 2013, 02:39:01 PM

Here's what the REG says about negates:

Quote from: REG > Instant Abilities > Negate
General Description
A negate ability takes a previously completed ability and undoes the effect of that ability.
How to Play
A negate ability interrupts all specified special abilities and prevents them from reactivating. A negate ability also prevents
targeted special abilities from ever being able to activate.

Unlike some other special ability types I don't see anything under negate that specifies the default condition "Targets must be in play.” That lines up with the way I've always understood negate to work - you can negate a special ability that is no longer in play.

One of the first practical examples I encountered when I started playing is this - rescuer plays Great Faith and exchanges the searched for enhancement to hand. Initiative passes and the defender plays a EE that says "negate the special ability of the last good enhancement". Great Faith is in the deck, but it still gets negated.

I have always had it ruled that ALL abilities default to play, unless specified otherwise. In fact, the point you made about the REG not specifying whether it defaults to play means it defaults to play:

From the definition of In Play:

Quote

In Play means within the Field of Play. Cards that are considered in play include cards in territories
and cards in any main battle or side battle that hasn’t been set-aside by a special ability.
Abilities that don’t specify where their targets must be located by default can only target cards
in play

Nowhere in any of the P/I/N abilities does it specify targeted locations, besides Prevent which defaults to in-play by its definition. Negate and Interrupt don't even have a default condition. And as they do not state that they target out-of-play cards, the REG is clear that they cannot in their default state. That is, a negate/interrupt must be targeted to a location out of play, or it cannot be used against those cards, because all abilities default to In-Play unless otherwise stated.

Master KChief · « **Reply #29 on:** February 15, 2013, 11:23:11 PM »

I'm also confused how some of us are able to make the leap from default targeting conditions to negating cards not in play anymore. As far as I'm aware, 'negate last' works on everything regardless of location because of the keyword 'last'. Striking Herod would still default to in play.

Platinum_Angel · « **Reply #30 on:** February 16, 2013, 01:52:40 AM »

I have mentioned in other posts before that maybe Redemption could incorporate "The Stack." In talking about this before I was saying for any card played or put into play. Now I'm thinking maybe just for battle.

Example: The Stack; played as,

-Player rescues with hero
-Opponent blocks with evil character (rescuing player gains initiative)
-Rescuing player plays enhancement (initiative passes)
-Opponent gets a chance to play a "negate" before rescuing players enhancement takes effect; only if rescuing players enhancement "would" pass to opponent.

Seems to me it would solve shuffling, going back to hand, card in discard pile, etc.

Just a thought. (Or maybe just makes things more confusing)

Gabe · « **Reply #31 on:** February 16, 2013, 08:33:04 AM »

Quote from: Redoubter on February 15, 2013, 10:02:30 PM

That is, a negate/interrupt must be targeted to a location out of play, or it cannot be used against those cards, because all abilities default to In-Play unless otherwise stated.

That's true for abilities that target cards, as stated in the definition that you quoted. However interrupt/negate abilities do not target cards, they target special abilities and are not bound by the same restriction as abilities that target cards. "Negate last" abilities have already been given as an example of this. It's also the reason that a negate can target a protected card. If negate targeted the card instead of the special ability, the card would not be a legal target due to it's protection.

Redoubter · « **Reply #32 on:** February 16, 2013, 05:38:51 PM »

Quote from: Gabe on February 16, 2013, 08:33:04 AM

Quote from: Redoubter on February 15, 2013, 10:02:30 PM
That is, a negate/interrupt must be targeted to a location out of play, or it cannot be used against those cards, because all abilities default to In-Play unless otherwise stated.

That's true for abilities that target cards, as stated in the definition that you quoted. However interrupt/negate abilities do not target cards, they target special abilities and are not bound by the same restriction as abilities that target cards. "Negate last" abilities have already been given as an example of this. It's also the reason that a negate can target a protected card. If negate targeted the card instead of the special ability, the card would not be a legal target due to it's protection.

Actually, "Negate last" all specify that they negate the last card, not special ability. That more supports the idea that negate targets cards than that it doesn't.

Also, nowhere in the definition of Negate does it state that it doesn't target the cards, or that it can target out-of-play. In fact, look at the clarification:

Quote

Clarifications
Phrases that are constructed as “Negate a/an/all [card type/card name](s)” are equivalent to “Negate all special abilities on
a/an/all [card type/card name](s)”.

There it even states that the clarified ability has targets that are based on the card. I see what you're trying to say, but the rules we have don't specify to that degree, and it does go against how the game has been ruled in the past (evidenced by responses in this thread). If it were to change the status quo, the wording must be clear in that change.

Josh · « **Reply #33 on:** February 17, 2013, 12:36:01 PM »

Quote from: Redoubter on February 16, 2013, 05:38:51 PM

Actually, "Negate last" all specify that they negate the last card, not special ability. That more supports the idea that negate targets cards than that it doesn't.

Negates don't target cards. If you block James/superThad with 12FG, Thad is kicked out of battle, even though James is protected from 12FG, because 12FG negates James' ability and does not target James.

Saying that negate last abilities "negate the last card" is just short-hand for "negate the last card's ability".

I definitely agree with Gabe on this. Since negates target abilities and not cards, it makes sense that they would operate similar to how Dust and Ashes interacts with Job; Job doesn't need to be in play to get "Insteaded" by DaA.

Redoubter · « **Reply #34 on:** February 17, 2013, 01:49:53 PM »

Quote from: jmhartz on February 17, 2013, 12:36:01 PM

I definitely agree with Gabe on this. Since negates target abilities and not cards, it makes sense that they would operate similar to how Dust and Ashes interacts with Job; Job doesn't need to be in play to get "Insteaded" by DaA.

First, can you point to where in the rules you are getting this from? I have shown where it states cards are targeted, and there is nowhere that it states abilities are targeted independent of cards, nor that they can target out-of-play. And again, this goes against previous rulings that abilities that are on card out-of-play could not be targeted.

Second, Instead =/= negate, and that is a whole other can of worms to open in regards to this situation.

Josh · « **Reply #35 on:** February 17, 2013, 02:45:00 PM »

Quote from: Redoubter on February 17, 2013, 01:49:53 PM

First, can you point to where in the rules you are getting this from? I have shown where it states cards are targeted, and there is nowhere that it states abilities are targeted independent of cards, nor that they can target out-of-play. And again, this goes against previous rulings that abilities that are on card out-of-play could not be targeted.

From the REG:

-----
General Description
A negate ability takes a previously completed ability and undoes the effect of that ability.

How to Play
A negate ability interrupts all specified special abilities and prevents them from reactivating. A negate ability also prevents
targeted special abilities from ever being able to activate.

Clarifications
Phrases that are constructed as “Negate a/an/all [card type/card name](s)” are equivalent to “Negate all special abilities on
a/an/all [card type/card name](s)”.
-----

It's right there in the REG in the definition of "negate". It always targets abilities, not cards. It even goes on to clarify that cards that say "negate a card" really mean "negate the ability on that card".

And like I said, if negates targeted cards, then Thad would stop 12FG or Goliath from negating James the Lesser, since they would be targeting James and not his ability. But we all know that Thad would get kicked out if either of those two characters blocked.

Quote from: Redoubter on February 17, 2013, 01:49:53 PM

Second, Instead =/= negate, and that is a whole other can of worms to open in regards to this situation.

They are exactly the same in that both target abilities, not cards. Which is why Dust and Ashes can save Job when he is discarded in a set-aside area by Darius' Decree, and why Habakkuk can negate Uzzah after Uzzah has discarded himself.

Redoubter · « **Reply #36 on:** February 20, 2013, 04:39:12 PM »

I see your point, but I say again that nowhere in the rules is it clear that abilities are targeted independent of the card, nor that they target abilities on cards that have gone (or are) out-of-play. If what you are saying were correct, then we could negate cards that were in set-aside. That is not currently the case, and it has never been ruled that way.

Redoubter · « **Reply #37 on:** February 24, 2013, 11:34:40 AM »

Bump, because we have 1 Elder saying that you negate the ability, regardless of where the card is, and 2 Elders saying that you must still target the source and the status quo of default-to-play. We need to have some clarity, please.

Also, want to see what is thought of my assertion that if we go with Gabe's interpretation, then all cards are subject to negate, including those in set-aside, which has never been the rule. Does Daniel negate Gates of Hell, for instance?

TheHobbit13 · « **Reply #38 on:** February 24, 2013, 12:58:30 PM »

Quote from: SirNobody on July 05, 2010, 09:30:02 PM

Hey,

Can you interrupt Joseph in Prison? Yes. Joseph in Prison similarly removes itself from battle, but you can still interrupt it. By the same token you can interrupt Go Into Captivity.

Tschow,

Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly

I agree with Tim. Even though Joseph in Prison is being removed from the game you can still target it with a negate. This leads me to believe you can still target uzzah with a negate even though he discards himself.

Redoubter · « **Reply #39 on:** February 24, 2013, 01:02:05 PM »

Quote from: TheHobbit on February 24, 2013, 12:58:30 PM

Quote from: SirNobody on July 05, 2010, 09:30:02 PM
Hey,

Can you interrupt Joseph in Prison? Yes. Joseph in Prison similarly removes itself from battle, but you can still interrupt it. By the same token you can interrupt Go Into Captivity.

Tschow,

Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly

I agree with Tim. Even though Joseph in Prison is being removed from the game you can still target it with a negate. This leads me to believe you can still target uzzah with a negate even though he discards himself.

That is not actually the discussion at hand. JiP causes SI, and has not actually left play until SI is over. Uzzah has already left play, and is not causing SI. The cases are not comparable, though Tim's post is validated by the new SI rules, yes.

TheHobbit13 · « **Reply #40 on:** February 24, 2013, 01:09:10 PM »

An Elder ruled JiP does not stay in battle so I am sticking with that interpretation for now. If he is right then the two situations are comparable because both uzzah and Jip are being removed from play and can still be targeted by a negate. The only major difference is that SI allows you to negate Jip and Angels Sword allows you to negate uzzah.

Redoubter · « **Reply #41 on:** February 24, 2013, 01:12:58 PM »

Quote from: TheHobbit on February 24, 2013, 01:09:10 PM

An Elder ruled JiP does not stay in battle so I am sticking with that interpretation for now. If he is right then the two situations are comparable because both uzzah and Jip are being removed from play and can still be targeted by a negate. The only major difference is that SI allows you to negate Jip and Angels Sword allows you to negate uzzah.

His post was in 2010. Many posts since have stated that in SI, the card is still "in-play" for targeting, and SI was revamped in 2012-2013. A post from 2010 no longer applies to the situation

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #42 on:** February 24, 2013, 01:40:41 PM »

It's still 2010 here in Florida....

STAMP · « **Reply #43 on:** February 24, 2013, 09:54:06 PM »

Quote from: YourMathTeacher on February 24, 2013, 01:40:41 PM

It's still 2010 here in Florida....

And in some FL counties it's still 2000 (because they haven't finished counting votes).

Redoubter · « **Reply #44 on:** February 01, 2014, 02:21:29 PM »

Bumping this thread for two different rules implications, which I have separated below. Note that I may or may not agree with my posts (or how they were presented) from the past going forward, I'm open to hearing the different opinions

Question #1
Does Interrupt the Battle interrupt the last card or the last enhancement?

The definition, prior to the new REG, was that only the last enhancement was interrupted, if played by opponent. Unfortunately, according to the REG, we have two different definitions.

Quote from: Interrupt, Special Conditions

The phrase “interrupt the battle” includes interrupting the following:
o all active ongoing abilities
o abilities that are defeating one of the characters you control in battle
o the last card played in current battle if it was played by your opponent.

Quote from: Interrupt the Battle, Glossary

Interrupt the battle interrupts the following:
Your opponent’s special abilities that are (1) causing you to be losing by removal, or (2) causing a
mutual destruction by mutual removal.
The last enhancement played in battle, as long as it was played by an opponent.
ALL ongoing special abilities (see Ongoing Abilities).

We need to determine which of these is correct, and make the update accordingly. Personally, I'm in favor of the change to "card" because it is more consistent and simpler, but I wouldn't be opposed to either result. If we have it as enhancement-only, one ruling in this thread would change (as ITB could not interrupt the discard portion of Uzzah, so he would not be in play for the discard ability on Striking Herod).

Is there a resolution on this?

Question #2
Are prevent/interrupt/negate limited to "in play"?

We have one Elder who is arguing that they do, and others who say that you have to be able to target the source. A thought exercise would be asking whether Gates of Hell would be negated by Daniel.

I would argue that all abilities default to play, but this brings up two fundamental questions about P/I/N:
1. Do P/I/N target cards? There seems to be disagreement on this.
2. Can P/I/N affect abilities that are on cards not in play, if their cards do not specify?

Can we get a better definition for this, the default targeting for these abilities, and how everything interacts?

TheHobbit13 · « **Reply #45 on:** February 02, 2014, 09:59:18 AM »

Let's look at this situation first before we draw conclusions on Daniel vs Gates:

Scenario: Player A RA with Thaddeus. Player B blocks with Emperor Tiberius. Player A plays My Lord and My God to discard Tiberius. PAUSE for a moment, can Tiberius play a negate card to negate My Lord and My God? The ruling up this this point has been yes. The logic behind that ruling is negate is not targeting the card it is targeting the ability. If negate does indeed target cards, MLaMG cannot be targeted by any card Tiberius uses (assuming there are 11 disciples in play). The rules/rulings say (I hope) that negate targets abilities on the cards and not the cards themselves. Since any "negate the last enhancement" card Tiberius plays targets the ability of MLaMG and not the card Thaddeus does not protect it because he can only protect from cards. And before anyone starts to say well abilities ARE apart of the card because they are printed on a card please play 1 game of Type 2 and you will understand why this ruling exists. Or realize that you could not negate any protect with this understanding. The important part to understand is that negate targets abilities on card not the cards themselves but must be to target those abilities. Some times negate cannot, like in the Daniel vs Gates situation. Daniel defaults to play and so his negate cannot target abilities in set aside area.

References:
Rule for Default Targeting
"Abilities that don’t specify where their targets must be located by default can only target cards in play."

Moving forward to the Striking Herod Uzzah situation. Uzzah is discarded and the lost souls are protected. Angels Sword triggers and activates. Michael can play one enhancement but that's it. I am not sure what enhancement he can really use effectively because there is no in the game of redemption to negate Uzzah in the discard pile. There is literally no special ability that targets discard pile. A card must target a special ability in the discard pile in order for that card to negate it. Striking Herod interrupts the last card played (let's assume it does interrupt cards) and this means that it must target the last card's ability in order to negate it. However, given the default conditions for targeting, this last card needs to be in play. Uzzah in the discard pile which is out of play therefore Striking Herod cannot interrupt Uzzah's protect.

Quote from: Gabe on February 15, 2013, 02:39:01 PM

Here's what the REG says about negates:

Quote from: REG > Instant Abilities > Negate
General Description
A negate ability takes a previously completed ability and undoes the effect of that ability.
How to Play
A negate ability interrupts all specified special abilities and prevents them from reactivating. A negate ability also prevents
targeted special abilities from ever being able to activate.

Using the Uzzah example that's been discussed above, after Uzzah has activated and has discarded himself, if you found a way to band Habakkuk into the battle, he would negate Uzzah's protection.

Habakkuk - Negate all protect abilities on evil cards. After this battle, you may discard a warrior class Evil Character. Cannot be negated.

I understand what you are saying about negate and I totally agree with you but you are not understanding that the default to play targeting rule actually applies when cards try and negate abilities that are out of play . So Habakkuk defaults to play and therefore does not negate protect abilities that are out of play. You negate uzzah by banding in Habakkkuk.

Redoubter · « **Reply #46 on:** February 02, 2014, 11:25:14 AM »

Quote from: TheHobbit on February 02, 2014, 09:59:18 AM

Scenario: Player A RA with Thaddeus. Player B blocks with Emperor Tiberius. Player A plays My Lord and My God to discard Tiberius. PAUSE for a moment, can Tiberius play a negate card to negate My Lord and My God? The ruling up this this point has been yes. The logic behind that ruling is negate is not targeting the card it is targeting the ability. If negate does indeed target cards, MLaMG cannot be targeted by any card Tiberius uses (assuming there are 11 disciples in play). The rules/rulings say (I hope) that negate targets abilities on the cards and not the cards themselves.

Sorry, but I believe your example is not applicable because negate has not been determined to be harm to the card, which is why it has worked. It is not actually affecting the card, but the SA. While I understand your point, I put forth that this is an important distinction.

Quote from: TheHobbit on February 02, 2014, 09:59:18 AM

I understand what you are saying about negate and I totally agree with you but you are not understanding that the default to play targeting rule actually applies when cards try and negate abilities that are out of play . So Habakkuk defaults to play and therefore does not negate protect abilities that are out of play. You negate uzzah by banding in Habakkkuk.

Can you rephrase? You said two completely different things with your last two sentences.

TheHobbit13 · « **Reply #47 on:** February 02, 2014, 12:34:37 PM »

Quote from: Redoubter on February 02, 2014, 11:25:14 AM

Quote from: TheHobbit on February 02, 2014, 09:59:18 AM
Scenario: Player A RA with Thaddeus. Player B blocks with Emperor Tiberius. Player A plays My Lord and My God to discard Tiberius. PAUSE for a moment, can Tiberius play a negate card to negate My Lord and My God? The ruling up this this point has been yes. The logic behind that ruling is negate is not targeting the card it is targeting the ability. If negate does indeed target cards, MLaMG cannot be targeted by any card Tiberius uses (assuming there are 11 disciples in play). The rules/rulings say (I hope) that negate targets abilities on the cards and not the cards themselves.

Sorry, but I believe your example is not applicable because negate has not been determined to be harm to the card, which is why it has worked. It is not actually affecting the card, but the SA. While I understand your point, I put forth that this is an important distinction.

I don't know about that. That could be one interpretation of how this ruling was resolved but it is not the best and this is why I think so: In order to harm the card you actually have to target the card you want to harm. Targeting is therefore the broader concept. Targeting is the correct language and is the reason why Tiberius can negate My Lord and My God played on Thaddeus. If you wanted to say that negate "harms" the ability that isn't "wrong" but it is not really isolated by the REG as the only concept involved. All I am saying is that one shouldn't assume that "harming the ability is the only reasoning" behind the Thaddeus ruling than argue that default conditions do not apply because this situation has nothing to do with targets.

Quote from: TheHobbit on February 02, 2014, 09:59:18 AM

I understand what you are saying about negate and I totally agree with you but you are not understanding that the default to play targeting rule actually applies when cards try and negate abilities that are out of play . So Habakkuk defaults to play and therefore does not negate protect abilities that are out of play. You EDIT cannot EDIT negate uzzah by banding in Habakkkuk.

I forgot to say 'cannot' but I meant to. Does that clear things up?

Redoubter · « **Reply #48 on:** February 02, 2014, 02:04:47 PM »

Quote from: TheHobbit on February 02, 2014, 12:34:37 PM

I forgot to say 'cannot' but I meant to. Does that clear things up?

Yeah, it does on that part, was a little confused.

Also, I'm not saying that negates harm, I'm saying they don't. However, I do understand your point on that component. My main point is that negates have a default location of play, because it does not have any other specificity, that's the crux of it.

TheHobbit13 · « **Reply #49 on:** February 02, 2014, 02:39:40 PM »

Quote from: Redoubter on February 02, 2014, 02:04:47 PM

My main point is that negates have a default location of play, because it does not have any other specificity, that's the crux of it.

I totally agree. But am confused at what your main point is really getting at. Are you saying that one cannot generalize the logic behind the Daniel vs Gates ruling to Uzzah vs Angels Sword+Striking Herod situation? Or are you saying that you cannot generalize the logic behind the Thaddeus+enhancement ruling directly to the ruling to the Uzzah Striking Herod situation? If your answer to the second question is yes, then I agree completely. I was just started with that situation to introduce the concept of targeting and how it applies to an established ruling, because if someone does not understand how negates target cards then they will not understand why the default conditions of special abilities apply to the Uzzah vs Striking Herod situation.

News:

Author Topic: Michael + Angels Sword vs Uzzah (Read 9175 times)

TheHobbit13

TheHobbit13

TheHobbit13

TheHobbit13

TheHobbit13