Cactus Game Design Message Boards
Redemption® Collectible Trading Card Game HQ => Official Rules & Errata => Ruling Questions => Topic started by: Master KChief on February 05, 2013, 01:13:03 AM
-
Michael makes a rescue attempt equipped with Angels Sword. Uzzah blocks and uses effect to discard himself, protecting all lost souls. Can Michael still play an enhancement from the effect of Angel's Sword with no evil character in battle?
Also, do weapons follow Heroes when they are returned from play to hand by an effect?
-
Yes and yes.
The first question follows the Warrior's Spear ruling where Bryon said that if the special ability entered battle and was not negated, then it still activates.
The second question fits under the "placed cards follow their hosts" ruling, which is true for just about everything. I think capture was the one exception.
-
The second question fits under the "placed cards follow their hosts" ruling, which is true for just about everything. I think capture was the one exception.
+1
However I do not think that Michael gets to play GE if there is no EC in battle (after Uzzah discards himself). My understanding of Angel's Sword is that it gives init to Michael on an initiative check regardless of whether he is currently winning or losing the battle. However, if Uzzah discards himself and there is no EC in battle, then there would never be an initiative check.
-
However I do not think that Michael gets to play GE if there is no EC in battle (after Uzzah discards himself). My understanding of Angel's Sword is that it gives init to Michael on an initiative check regardless of whether he is currently winning or losing the battle. However, if Uzzah discards himself and there is no EC in battle, then there would never be an initiative check.
Mark, I totally agree with you if Angel's Sword did an initiative check. That's an accurate understanding of how it would work. Since the ability of Angel's Sword wasn't posted before, I grabbed the wording and play as (as it existed in the deceased web based REG).
Special Ability: If blocked by a human Evil Character. Hero may play the first enhancement.
Play As: If blocked by a human Evil Character, holder may play an enhancement.
Angel's Sword works like many of the horses weapons, in that it has a special ability that allows an enhancement to be played, provided a condition is met. Did a human Evil Character block? Yes. Then you may play an enhancement. The wording isn't contingent upon Uzzah remaining in battle, only that he blocked. Once the block is complete, the special ability on Angel's Sword takes effect and the enhancement may be played.
-
Angel's Sword works like many of the horses weapons, in that it has a special ability that allows an enhancement to be played, provided a condition is met. Did a human Evil Character block? Yes. Then you may play an enhancement. The wording isn't contingent upon Uzzah remaining in battle, only that he blocked. Once the block is complete, the special ability on Angel's Sword takes effect and the enhancement may be played.
This seems to go along with the sentiment of a ruling Sir Nobody made regarding TToD and Uzzah (http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/ruling-questions/throne-of-david-and-blocked/msg479823/#msg479823), but it was contended (a lot) in that thread, questioned by Prof U (funny this thread went similarly ;)), and Prof U also commented on how complicated and confusing the explanation by Sir Nobody was (which is due to the rules involved, not his posts themselves IMO). Then in the end, we never really got the impression it was fully resolved.
Can we know what the ruling is from the Elders as a whole, and what rules it entails? As this involves multiple scenarios, I want to make sure I'm on the same page as the current ruling in my upcoming tournaments.
-
Gabe and Sir Nobody's interpretations seem simple and logical to me...just how'd I rule it.
-
This seems to go along with the sentiment of a ruling Sir Nobody made regarding TToD and Uzzah (http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/ruling-questions/throne-of-david-and-blocked/msg479823/#msg479823), but it was contended (a lot) in that thread, questioned by Prof U (funny this thread went similarly ;)), and Prof U also commented on how complicated and confusing the explanation by Sir Nobody was (which is due to the rules involved, not his posts themselves IMO). Then in the end, we never really got the impression it was fully resolved.
Ah, I remember that discussion. That was back when we were figuring out the whole "trigger" vs. "condition" issue, which ended up in the ruling posted here. (http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/redemption-official-rules/official-new-rulings-announcement-thread/msg477552/#msg477552)
Using that official ruling to apply to the TToD & Uzzah example indicates that SirNobody considers the phrase "is blocked" to be an ongoing state, and therefore the fortress is checking even while Uzzah's SA is happening and therefore sees him there even though he'll be gone by the time his SA is over.
Using that same ruling to apply to Angel's Sword indicates that Gabe considers the phrase "if blocked" to also be an ongoing state, and therefore the same thing happens.
I thought there was a ruling a while back about "play next" abilities that would make the "play as" for Angel's Sword more of an eratta, but I can't seem to find it now. So at this point, the safest ruling on this card would be Gabe's.
-
If I attack with Jacob to Michael w/ Angel Sword, opponent blocks with Uzzah autoblocks and I play Abes Servant to Ur, does Uzzah come back to battle?
-
No, as he is not in battle to be negated.
-
Does it stop the protect ability?
-
I thought there was a ruling a while back about "play next" abilities that would make the "play as" for Angel's Sword more of an eratta, but I can't seem to find it now.
RTS's question may be what you were referring to (although it would have nothing to do with the ability to play something after Uzzah). The original wording said "Hero may," which indicated that the enhancement had to be played on Michael. Whereas the "Play As" says "Holder may," which allows Abe's Servant to be played on Jacob. I would indeed say that is an errata.
With that said, I think Abe's Servant would negate the protect ability of Uzzah, and similar cards (if timed correctly).
-
does Uzzah come back to battle?
No, as he is not in battle to be negated.
+1 This is not a case of special initiative, so Uzzah can't be targeted out of play unless there was a card that specifically targeted there.
Does it stop the protect ability?
I think Abe's Servant would negate the protect ability of Uzzah, and similar cards (if timed correctly).
This is a tough question. Protection is an ongoing ability, and therefore seems like it should still be able to be negated. However, my question is whether Abe's Servant can target that protection.
Uzzah protection is coming from himself (who is now in the discard pile) and going to the LSs (which are in the LoB). Abe's Servant targets characters and enhancements that are in play, so it would seem to NOT be able to target either Uzzah or the LSs.
-
I was not aware that the ability was tied to the presence of the card for ongoing abilities. Abe's Servant is a "Negate All."
So, a card would have to negate "protection abilities" to stop an ability that has been activated by a card that is no longer in battle, otherwise the ability becomes CBI?
-
I'm not actually stating one way or the other. I'm just asking the question how a card that targets characters and enhancements could stop an ongoing ability coming from a card that it can't target.
I'm sure someone will hop on that will have a simple answer to that question. But for some reason this morning, my brain is hung up on it.
-
Mr. ITB thinks differently. ;)
-
The original wording said "Hero may," which indicated that the enhancement had to be played on Michael. Whereas the "Play As" says "Holder may," which allows Abe's Servant to be played on Jacob. I would indeed say that is an errata.
I know the reason behind this one--we made the rule that Heroes do not play enhancements, players (holders) play enhancements (on Heroes).
However, if the intent was for the bearer of Angel's Sword to be the Hero on which the enhancement was played, then we probably do need to adjust the play as.
-
Mr. ITB thinks differently. ;)
Alright so it's not CBI, but ItB would not stop Uzzah or the like. I meant that only a card that specifies to negate "protection abilities" would stop Uzzah after he discards himself.
I know the reason behind this one--we made the rule that Heroes do not play enhancements, players (holders) play enhancements (on Heroes).
However, if the intent was for the bearer of Angel's Sword to be the Hero on which the enhancement was played, then we probably do need to adjust the play as.
I remember the rationale, but I also remember the distinction being made between "Hero" and "A Hero." Anytime that a SA started with "Hero may," it only applied to that hero.
-
Mr. ITB thinks differently. ;)
This is a good question, which I look forward to hearing an elder comment on. In the REG, it states that one of the 3 things ITB does is interrupt "all active ongoing abilities". My question is this: Does this default to abilities in play? Uzzah is ongoing, but is not in play, so would ITB, and then banding in Abigail to battle, be a way to defeat Uzzah's protection?
I was not aware that the ability was tied to the presence of the card for ongoing abilities. Abe's Servant is a "Negate All."
So, a card would have to negate "protection abilities" to stop an ability that has been activated by a card that is no longer in battle, otherwise the ability becomes CBI?
I'm not actually stating one way or the other. I'm just asking the question how a card that targets characters and enhancements could stop an ongoing ability coming from a card that it can't target.
The default for all abilities is "in play", so unless Abe's Servant has verbiage specifically allowing it to target a card in a discard pile, it can't negate Uzzah, right?
-
The default for all abilities is "in play", so unless Abe's Servant has verbiage specifically allowing it to target a card in a discard pile, it can't negate Uzzah, right?
The first part of this answers ALL of the questions. ITB, Negate All, Negate Protection, etc. etc. cannot affect Uzzah's ability. In order to negate an ability, you must be able to target the source. And in each of those cases, the interrupt/negate does not specify location. Therefore, only cards that are "in play" can be affected by them.
So Abe's Kid says "Negate All", and while it says "all" it does not affect cards in set-aside, RFG, LoR, hand, deck, discard. Only those in play. Since it cannot hit the character (which it says it is negating, not just the ability), it cannot negate Uzzah in discard.
ITB says that it interrupts all ongoing abilities, but again it says "all" without specifying location. It follows that it cannot interrupt a card that is not "in play" for the same reasons as stated above. The only time it can is when that card is causing Special Initiative, which is not the case with Uzzah.
Since the newest definition of SI, nothing can stop Uzzah once he discards himself. He must be prevented or the cards already protected (by Abigail, say, as you can be protected from protection), otherwise his protection will not end.
-
ITB says that it interrupts all ongoing abilities,
I've tried to follow rule changes as closely as I can, but I've missed a lot. My last recollection was that ITB interrupts all ongoing abilities regardless of the source because it is targeting the ability. In fact, I thought I read somewhere that negates and interrupts specifically target abilities, not cards or players. I may be wrong. I think you'll eventually get an Elder to give you the current correct answer.
-
Been a week - any updates on this thread?
Kirk
-
In order to negate an ability, you must be able to target the source.
This is the key point that needs to be decided. Do you have to target the source of an ongoing ability (like protection) to negate it, or can you simply negate the protection regardless of where it came from? I'm hoping that another elder will see this thread and join in the discussion.
-
Been a week - any updates on this thread?
Kirk
What's still not clear?
-
What's still not clear?
The question is whether you can negate/interrupt an ongoing ability without the presence of the card that initiated the ability.
-
Here's what the REG says about negates:
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.
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.
In the original question, we've confirmed that Angel's Sword does allow Michael to play an enhancement. If that enhancement is Striking Herod, then Uzzah would be interrupted and discarded by Striking Herod because he was the last card played by the opponent in the current battle.
Striking Herod - Interrupt the battle and discard a male human Evil Character.
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.
Interrupt the battle only includes such abilities if they were activated on cards in the current battle.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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? 8)) I believe the same would be true for a purple King if Throne of David was in play.
-
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.
Here's what the REG says about negates:
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:
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.
-
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.
-
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)
-
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.
-
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:
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 ;)
-
It's still 2010 here in Florida....
-
It's still 2010 here in Florida....
And in some FL counties it's still 2000 (because they haven't finished counting votes). ;)
-
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.
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.
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?
-
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.
Here's what the REG says about negates:
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.
-
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 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.
-
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.
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
There is no Daniel vs Gates ruling ;) I'm using that as the best example of a card that does not specify not-in-play and a card that is always not-in-play as a thought exercise. If what is being presented is true (that negate does not default to play), then I ask whether Daniel negates Gates, because that is the sort of implication that would come out of such a ruling becoming the precedent. Using that example also shows how we don't have that rule now, because no one (that I know of) has ever ruled that Daniel can negate Gates.
-
because no one (that I know of) has ever ruled that Daniel can negate Gates.
Right, so basically the ruling is Daniel does not negate Gates of Hell. That is the only other outcome. Also enough elders have agreed that Daniel does not negate Gates of Hell. This is an established ruling. Since Daniel cannot negate Gates because his ability defaults to play it follows that Striking Herod cannot negate Uzzah because that ability defaults to play. My point is we all ready have a a ruling based on some precedent that is not clearly outlined in the rules. Since we already have a ruling there is logic behind that ruling and that logic must be applied to all situations. If someone does not understand that these situations are the same then they have more problems than we can really address in a rulings thread. If (and most likely this is the case) they don't agree with the logic of negates defaulting to play then an explanation is more tricky. However, that is why I was attempting to explain how targeting works in the context of the default conditions for play. The only real issue is that Striking Herod interrupts the last card in battle. Since Uzzah is the last card played in battle it can, in theory, interrupt Uzzah. My contention is that interrupt can only target abilities that are in play and that when applying interrupt the battle rules you have to be able to target the card in order for an ability to interrupt anything. Even if ITB only interrupts ongoing abilities the Striking Herod still needs a target to carry out those abilities.
So yes the idea is open to debate but the ruling of this thread is very much final given the precedence of the Daniel vs Gates ruling. Striking Herod does not negate Uzzah.
If one argues in reverse and says Striking Herod negates Uzzah therefore Daniel negates Gates that's fine and dandy. However. that way of thinking is bad for the game because you are taking a situation that rarely ever happens and generalizing the results to a situation happens a lot. That is not bad logic but is bad for the game. Let's not even bring up all the inconsistencies that arise by saying that negate does not default to play. It is just more simple to include all abilities in the default conditions.
-
Striking Herod can stop Uzzah while Daniel is not able to negate Gates of Hell, they are not mutually exclusive. Interrupt the battle and negate (or even just the plain "interrupt") are different abilities so it's entirely reasonable that they'd have different definitions/default conditions/etc.
The fact that interrupt the battle may or may not have been changed to interrupt the last "card" doesn't change the fact that "negate" defaults to play so Daniel doesn't negate Gates of Hell.
-
Browarod, I agree that ITB is different, the negate issue is a separate issue that came up in this thread as a result of furthering the discussion. There are two questions at play here: Did ITB change, and can negates negate out of play?
-
Browarod, I agree that ITB is different, the negate issue is a separate issue that came up in this thread as a result of furthering the discussion. There are two questions at play here: Did ITB change, and can negates negate out of play?
Right, I know you know, I was clarifying for Hobbit. :P
As far as the questions, the Gates of Hell/Daniel issue was ruled by Sir Nobody here (http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/ruling-questions/target-underdeck-without-special-initiative/msg509038/#msg509038). For the ItB possible change, that's something an Elder would have to confirm on if that was an intended change or just a mistake that made it through proofreading.
-
Daniel cannot negate Gates because his ability defaults to play
The rule on default targets is "Abilities that don’t specify where their targets must be located by default can only target cards in play." The problem with this is that negates target abilities, not cards. So are we going to say that, unless a negate says otherwise (like ASA), negates can only target abilities that have been activated in play? So therefore Daniel can't negate Gates of Hell, because the ability is activating "out of play"?
If this is the ruling, that's fine, but the point Redoubter and I have been trying to make is that there is no current ruling on what negates can target, because it hasn't been defined. And when an elder like Gabe says that Striking Herod can interrupt Uzzah's protection, even though he is "out of play", then we would just like the rules to be clarified and "set in stone" so that we know how they operate going forward. Because, based on Gabe's reasoning, I would rule that negates are not limited to "in play" or "out of play", and therefore Daniel can negate Gates of Hell. Or is it because Uzzah activated "in play", therefore his ability is "in play"?
The ultimate question is: "Where is the target for a negate ability?"
-
The issue here is not that Gates and Uzzah are both out of play, it's that negate and interrupt the battle are different abilities. By definition interrupt the battle interrupts the last card/enhancement (depending on which part of the REG you go with) played by the opponent. This is the only reason that Striking Herod even has the remote possibility of interrupting Uzzah. If Striking Herod instead said "Negate an evil card. Discard an evil character." you would NOT be able to use it to stop Uzzah because negate, like every other ability, defaults to in play unless it specifies otherwise (or unless it's special initiative which is a whole, separate mess).
Negate is a special ability like any other, it just targets the special ability of a card rather than the card itself. There isn't any reason to assume it behaves differently by default than any other special ability in the game insomuch as the card still has to be in play for the negate to be able to target the special ability on it (unless it specifies otherwise).
If I have a card that counts the # of characters with a certain identifier, it doesn't count characters set aside, or in discard pile, with that identifier because the ability defaults to play even though the ability is checking for something on a card rather than the card itself.
-
Negate is a special ability like any other, it just targets the special ability of a card rather than the card itself. There isn't any reason to assume it behaves differently by default than any other special ability in the game insomuch as the card still has to be in play for the negate to be able to target the special ability on it (unless it specifies otherwise).
Negates are not like other abilities. They are like Instead abilities, which target abilities, not cards. Dust and Ashes has been ruled to save Job from harm by an opponent, no matter where Job is, including out of play (such as when Job is set-aside, sitting in D&A).
If abilities are "in play" or "out of play" based on the location of the card whose ability is activating, then RBD can't Instead the draw on Fishing Boat, since Fishing Boat is out of play, and therefore the draw ability is also out of play.
Like I said, if your description of the targets of a negate are accurate, that is fine; but I think that, until it is confirmed by Elders and put in the REG, there will always be a lack of clarity that is needed.
-
Negates are not like other abilities. They are like Instead abilities, which target abilities, not cards. Dust and Ashes has been ruled to save Job from harm by an opponent, no matter where Job is, including out of play (such as when Job is set-aside, sitting in D&A).
If abilities are "in play" or "out of play" based on the location of the card whose ability is activating, then RBD can't Instead the draw on Fishing Boat, since Fishing Boat is out of play, and therefore the draw ability is also out of play.
Sorry, this is very much incorrect. First, negate is not defined anything like instead, to start that as your basis is not going to go anywhere, they are their own abilities.
Instead is clearly defined on how it is ruled through the REG, so if you want to say that "has been ruled to", that has nothing to do with it being 'expanded' on as we are discussing with negate, you can find those rules laid out very clearly on their own. It is not an 'ability' that falls under the default conditions (defaulting to in-play), at least per the REG.
We cannot compare two different abilities and just declare them being treated the same. I'm not going to say that Withdraw and Discard are the same basic principle for what they affect, they are not; they have different ways of dealing with default targeting. In the same way, we cannot just throw out that two unrelated abilities are the same in terms of targeting.
Negate =/= Instead.
-
I'm not going to say that Withdraw and Discard are the same basic principle for what they affect
I'm not saying that Negate and Instead are the same basic principle for what they affect. I'm saying those two abilities are the only abilities that target abilities, not cards.
they have different ways of dealing with default targeting
Actually, Withdraw and Discard (and every other ability other than Instead and Negate) have exactly the same method of default targeting: the target card(s) must be in play, unless otherwise specified.
Instead targets an ability, and it doesn't matter where the card is that activated the ability. Job in set-aside is saved by Dust and Ashes, and RBD can stop the draw from Fishing Boat.
Negates also target abilties. Why would the abilities that Negate targets be any different than Instead?
*****
The issue here is not that Gates and Uzzah are both out of play, it's that negate and interrupt the battle are different abilities.
I needed to readdress this, because I just realized that this is not an accurate restatement of the issue. The issue is regarding Gabe's example of Habakkuk.
"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."
This is where Redoubter and I got the idea that Daniel could negate Gates of Hell. It has nothing to do with Striking Herod or the definition of Interrupt The Battle.
-
The issue here is not that Gates and Uzzah are both out of play, it's that negate and interrupt the battle are different abilities.
I needed to readdress this, because I just realized that this is not an accurate restatement of the issue. The issue is regarding Gabe's example of Habakkuk.
"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."
This is where Redoubter and I got the idea that Daniel could negate Gates of Hell. It has nothing to do with Striking Herod or the definition of Interrupt The Battle.
Well, my point still stands that ItB and Negate are different abilities, it's just not as relevant to the conversation as I had thought when I pointed it out. :P
As far as the Habakkuk thing, I would actually have to disagree with Gabe. Daniel was ruled specifically to NOT be able to negate Gates of Hell so Habakkuk shouldn't be able to negate Uzzah after the fact either. If Habakkuk was in battle first, then by all means he'd prevent Uzzah, but afterwards you'd need an ItB or else special initiative (which Uzzah does NOT cause) in order to negate him.
-
Actually, Withdraw and Discard (and every other ability other than Instead and Negate) have exactly the same method of default targeting: the target card(s) must be in play, unless otherwise specified.
Actually, that is not truly correct. I specifically chose those two abilities because Withdraw does have a different default targeting condition than discard:
Default Conditions
Withdrawn characters return to their owner's territory.
Targets must be in the field of battle.
That is why my point still stands. They have different default targeting, because they are two different abilities, just like negate and instead cannot be compared directly to say that they affect literally the same things. They don't, unless they are defined as doing so.
Negates also target abilties. Why would the abilities that Negate targets be any different than Instead?
Withdraw and Discard both target characters. Why would they target differently? Because they are defined differently. Same concept.
This is where Redoubter and I got the idea that Daniel could negate Gates of Hell. It has nothing to do with Striking Herod or the definition of Interrupt The Battle.
Not just that, the concept being put forward that negate is not limited to play by default in general leads to that question.
-
When a card says interrupt the battle it means the card literally says: "Interrupt all ongoing abilities, last card...etc....." The main reason why ItB has its own entry is because there is no good way to fit all of those words on a card. The issues of Michael+Angels sword is resolved by this question: Is "last card" specific enough to target cards out of play? Personally, I don't believe that it is specific enough because last card literally means Uzzah in this case. If Striking Herod said "Interrupt Uzzah and discard a human evil character" can I interrupt an Uzzah that is in my opponent's discard pile. No. All you need to do is substitute "ItB"= REG definition of ItB and "last card"= Uzzah and it is obvious that Striking Herod cannot target Uzzah in discard pile.
-
Bumping this thread again. I haven't been around the boards nearly as much recently, so I apologize if the Elders came to a conclusion on this.
As a quick summary to this thread, Gabe has stated:
"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.
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.
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."
*****
My reason for bringing this back to light: Does King's Pomp negate Fishing Boat and Missionary Ship?
King's Pomp: Discard opponents' good placed Enhancements. Place on your evil King: Negate ignore and site access abilities. Protect your hand from opponents' cards.
-
No. "Negate all" abilities specifically have been ruled to default to play unless specified otherwise. See this post clarifying this in relation to Daniel (P) (http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/ruling-questions/target-underdeck-without-special-initiative/msg509038/#msg509038).
That's the most recent ruling on this topic that I'm aware of.