Cactus Game Design Message Boards
Redemption® Collectible Trading Card Game HQ => Official Rules & Errata => Ruling Questions => Topic started by: Mr.Hiatus on May 23, 2010, 05:07:54 PM
-
I am sure this was brought up, but I didn't see it. If a hero rescues against me and I block with a gray EC, play Momentum Change (return all evil enhancements except this one to holder's hand if evil character loses in battle), then play Just a Hireling ( discard your sadducee or pharisee to shuffle up to three lost souls into deck) then I die, to I get my Just a Hireling back?
-
i see no reason why you wouldnt get it back.
-
Just a Hireling causes your EC to lose the battle (even if it has become a battle challenge) so yes, you get JaH back.
-
Sweet, that's pretty awesome. Thanks guys.
-
/me hopes they don't also think about Pride of Simon and Twice Afflicted.
.... er, I mean... oops.
-
Making your text white just makes it even EASIER for people using Metallistic to see. ;)
-
Making your text white just makes it even EASIER for people using Metallistic to see. ;)
Bah. Metallic. Humbug
-
Warrior go get your post count up somewhere else, besides you do know you already got 5 stars... why keep posting unnecessarily? Anyway, Twice Afflicted is only on demons, which is good but I'd rather do Romans or all Pharisees. Pride of Simon is black, same thing goes.
-
Just use Sadds and Pharisees together, and throw in a Lying Spirit or maybe even a Shadow to play Twice Afflicted on.
-
I tend to favor Lying Spirit because I have more banding options. As long as I get him out one time to use 2A, and have a Sad in territory to discard, I'm good. Then I use Doctrine to bring the Sads back from the grave.
It's still not an A-level deck, but my Sads defense that plays Hireling up to four times is still probably my strongest deck.
-
I am sure this was brought up, but I didn't see it. If a hero rescues against me and I block with a gray EC, play Momentum Change (return all evil enhancements except this one to holder's hand if evil character loses in battle), then play Just a Hireling ( discard your sadducee or pharisee to shuffle up to three lost souls into deck) then I die, to I get my Just a Hireling back?
Say you block as described above. Then next turn you block with Lying Spirit and have Just a Hireling in hand. You play twice afflicted to play momentum change then play just a hireling to discard a pharisee in territory. Does the second part of twice afflicted that prevents return to hand abilities stop momentum changes ability to return.
Just a Hireling
Type: Evil Enh. • Brigade: Black/Gray • Ability: None • Class: None • Special Ability: Discard your Sadducee or Pharisee to shuffle up to three Lost Souls into deck. • Identifiers: None • Verse: John 10:12 • Availability: Rock of Ages (Set 18)
Twice Afflicted
Type: Evil Enh. • Brigade: Grey • Ability: 2 / 4 • Class: None • Special Ability: If used by a demon, search discard pile for a gray brigade enhancement and play it. Prevent all special abilities that return cards to a player's hand. • Identifiers: NT, Connected with Demons • Verse: Luke 11:26 • Availability: Angel Wars booster packs (Common)
Momentum Change
Type: Evil Enh. • Brigade: Grey • Ability: None • Class: None • Special Ability: Return all Evil Enhancements except this one to holder's hand if Evil Character loses in battle. • Play As: Return all Evil Enhancements in this battle that were used by this Evil Character except this one to holder's hand if Evil Character loses in battle.
-
Yes, unless you use Namaan or an effective Asherah Pole.
-
I ask because the first part of the ability allows you to play momentum change and the second part prevents the return to hand ability. So is momentum change played before the second part of the SA completes? Basically I want to know what activates first, the playing of momentum change or the second part of twice afflicted's SA.
-
Ooooooh, I see what you're saying now. Actually yes, since abilities activate in the order they are printed, Momentum Change would already have been activated in battle before the Prevent kicks in!
-
I know it's been ruled that It doesn't work in the past - I'll see if I can find a thread.
-
Maybe it was ruled that way, but clearly it was an oversight. A reading of the card gives the obvious answer, so unless the Play As is wrong, any other ruling is wrong.
-
Ok, so I couldn't find a thread - But the logic is thus:
Momentum Change is an ongoing trigger - So when Twice Afflicted is played it's prevent sits there, then negates MC when it tries to trigger.
-
Ok, so I couldn't find a thread - But the logic is thus:
Momentum Change is an ongoing trigger - So when Twice Afflicted is played it's prevent sits there, then negates MC when it tries to trigger.
I could not find a thread either. I am hoping the combo works. However, I could make it work with APole or just band Lying spirit to Naaman.
-
That seems to contradict what we're always told about Prevent only stopping things that happen after the prevent activates. If I play Great Image and you play something that Prevents an EE, would your Heroes die after battle?
-
i can see what rdt is saying with ongoing, but im more inclined to agree with pol because prevents have to be in place before the ability to stop the ability.
-
If Momentum Change is played first, then Twice Afflicted is played after, I believe that Momentum Change will be able return Evil Enhancements.
Prevent is a special ability used to preempt (stop) a future card’s special ability. Prevent does not stop cards that have already taken effect.
-
I disagree. Momentum Change is not an ability that returns a card to a player's hand until the EC loses, and by that time Twice Afflicted has kicked in. A similar situation would be if there was a card that said: "Discard of heroes is prevented this turn" and it was played after Great Image. No hero had yet been discarded by Great Image, but by Pol's logic, they still would be at the end of turn.
Of course, I would not be sad at the possibilities if what Pol said is true, I just can't logically justify it.
-
Twice Afflicted got its second sentence in playtesting specifically to disallow its combination with Momentum Change.
That said, Twice Afflicted should have used the word "negate" rather than "prevent" if even to avoid this question. Since it says "prevent" I can see both sides of the argument, and am not certain which is the correct asnwer.
-
Since it is says prevent, and the prevent comes after Momentum Change, then your enhancements return. If Momentum Change is played after Twice Afflicted, then you do not get your enhancements back. But I do not see this being a big problem, as the smallest demon in gray brigade is a 4/3 I believe, and Twice Afflicted is a 2/4 or something, so you would pass initiative almost every time. Seems like a nice side combo, but nothing to errata. Unless Haggai is in battle and played Meal in Emmaus and activates HHI and is ignored! Just kidding, calm down everyone.
-
But that all depends on which card is doing the preventing? Is Twice Afflicted granting the prevent power to Momentum change, or Lying spirit? If Lying spirit gained this ability, and all copies of Lying spirit were removed from play, wouldnt that mean that prevent ability would stop working, and therefore momentum change could enter battle without being prevented?
;)
-
Easy. Momentum Change establishes a triggered ability that activates in the future. Twice Afflicted prevents the triggered ability from activating.
+1. This is the only way I can really see it. The ability to return the cards doesn't try to activate until the EC loses, at which time the ability cannot activate.
-
Easy. Momentum Change establishes a triggered ability that activates in the future. Twice Afflicted prevents the triggered ability from activating.
+1. This is the only way I can really see it. The ability to return the cards doesn't try to activate until the EC loses, at which time the ability cannot activate.
I'm not sure whether I agree with this. If Momentum Change was physically placed on the table before Twice Afflicted, then I don't think Twice Afflicted could prevent its ability in any way.
-
The way I (and STAMP) see it, Momentum Change's return ability has not yet taken effect, thus it is still possible to prevent it from taking effect. I see it like this:
Playing Momentum Change is like* declaring "If I lose my next game of Redemption, I will go jump off of a skyscraper", then making all sorts of plans for doing so (travel arrangements, bypassing security, convincing yourself that the little voice in your head telling you to not do it is wrong, etc.)
Playing Twice Afflicted is like* destroying all of the skyscrapers in the world before my next game of Redemption, making it impossible for anyone to jump off of a skyscraper. I'm not stopping any of the arrangements I made and I would be ready to go as soon as my next game is over, I'm just stopping my ability (and everyone else's) to do the final act. I just decided that it was all worth it after all (especially for that gray enhancement I can get from my discard pile now, I guess).
*Okay, so it's not nearly that dramatic. But do you see my point?
-
Playing Momentum Change is like* declaring "If I lose my next game of Redemption, I will go jump off of a skyscraper", then making all sorts of plans for doing so (travel arrangements, bypassing security, convincing yourself that the little voice in your head telling you to not do it is wrong, etc.)
Playing Twice Afflicted is like* destroying all of the skyscrapers in the world before my next game of Redemption, making it impossible for anyone to jump off of a skyscraper. I'm not stopping any of the arrangements I made and I would be ready to go as soon as my next game is over, I'm just stopping my ability (and everyone else's) to do the final act. I just decided that it was all worth it after all (especially for that gray enhancement I can get from my discard pile now, I guess).
In an attempt to fit my point of view into that analogy, I believe that after saying "I will jump off a skyscraper," you go to the top of the building in preparation of doing so. Then when you destroy all the skyscrapers, you are unable to destroy the one you are already on.
...I think. :P
-
The way I (and STAMP) see it, Momentum Change's return ability has not yet taken effect, thus it is still possible to prevent it from taking effect. I see it like this:
Playing Momentum Change is like* declaring "If I lose my next game of Redemption, I will go jump off of a skyscraper", then making all sorts of plans for doing so (travel arrangements, bypassing security, convincing yourself that the little voice in your head telling you to not do it is wrong, etc.)
Playing Twice Afflicted is like* destroying all of the skyscrapers in the world before my next game of Redemption, making it impossible for anyone to jump off of a skyscraper. I'm not stopping any of the arrangements I made and I would be ready to go as soon as my next game is over, I'm just stopping my ability (and everyone else's) to do the final act. I just decided that it was all worth it after all (especially for that gray enhancement I can get from my discard pile now, I guess).
*Okay, so it's not nearly that dramatic. But do you see my point?
er, you may have confused it even more, but i see your point. mchange is played and sets up a triggered ability that hasnt happened yet. twice afflicted sets up an ability that prevents, which will stop the trigger from mchange if it hasnt happened yet. makes sense, chalk me up in your/stamps column.
-
Twice Afflicted got its second sentence in playtesting specifically to disallow its combination with Momentum Change.
That said, Twice Afflicted should have used the word "negate" rather than "prevent" if even to avoid this question. Since it says "prevent" I can see both sides of the argument, and am not certain which is the correct asnwer.
Based on your own recollection of the design process, stopping Mo Change is the "correct" answer. But I believe we consider cards to be activated even when their effect is "triggered" later on (Great Image, for example, would work even if discarded without negate), so I'm concerned that allowing Mo Change is actually the "accurate" answer.
-
I'm not sure whether I agree with this. If Momentum Change was physically placed on the table before Twice Afflicted, then I don't think Twice Afflicted could prevent its ability in any way.
Where is the little dude with the agree sign?
Anyway it goes down to simple game mechanics. I think so many people have been just trying to find things that are wrong and giving such crazy scenarios just to say they got an errata, or a new ruling, when everyone knows how it should be played. Anyway back to simple mechanics, I would say Twice Afflicted, being a prevent, has to be played before MO change, being played after would not stop it. A prevent stops anything from happening after it is played, nothing before hand, that's an interrupt. So by playing Momentum Change which is saying if you lose you get all your EE's back, then playing Twice Afflicted, which is preventing those abilities, does not stop it, because it already happened. I understand the trigger effect and when it is played and how it is ongoing, but I would think playing MO change before hand would get you EE's back.
-
But I believe we consider cards to be activated even when their effect is "triggered" later on (Great Image, for example, would work even if discarded without negate), so I'm concerned that allowing Mo Change is actually the "accurate" answer.
Momentum Change has activated, but it has only "set the trigger" at the time it was played. No return ability has been activated, just the trigger. Then Twice Afflicted comes in and prevents return abilities. Then when the return ability tries to kick in at the appropriate time, it is prevented.
I believe the same would also be true if I played Great Image, then before the battle ended, you played a card that said "discard of heroes is prevented" (if there was such a card). I have a hard time believing that the heroes would still be discarded.
Unfortunately, it seems we now have several experienced players on both sides, at least one PTB on the wrong side* (Schaef) and one PTB who on the fence (Bryon). I guess it's really a question of whether or not my assumption is true, that triggered abilities don't activate until the trigger condition is met. That's the only reasonable assumption I can draw from the idea of a trigger.
* :P
-
I guess it's really a question of whether or not my assumption is true, that triggered abilities don't activate until the trigger condition is met. That's the only reasonable assumption I can draw from the idea of a trigger.
You might be right, but isn't it equally as possible that triggered abilities activate when they're played, then they patiently wait until the condition is met to complete the ability?
-
Unfortunately, it seems we now have several experienced players on both sides, at least one PTB on the wrong side* (Schaef) and one PTB who on the fence (Bryon).
Your kidding aside, why is Bryon on the fence when I have been pushed off the fence to one side for merely expressing a concern?
-
I found an REG quote that I think proves me and Mr. Hiatus' side:
Prevent is a special ability used to preempt (stop) a future cards special ability.
Notice it does not use the easier wording "future special ability." If it took out the "card's," then I would probably agree with STAMP and Professoralstad's side, because Twice Afflicted would be preventing any more of Momentum Change's special ability from taking place. However, prevent does not stop abilities activating in the future; it stops abilities on cards that are played in the future. Huge difference there, especially in this case.
-
good find bubbleboy. im now inclined to agree as i originally thought. chalk me back up in my original column!
-
Nice work, Jeremy. It pleases me to see that you're learning how to find valuable information in the REG because I know that has been challenging for you in the past. :)
I agree that the REG quote seems to make it clear. I also posted it on page 2. ;)
-
It pleases me to see that you're learning how to find valuable information in the REG because I know that has been challenging for you in the past.
Yeah, I still pretty much have the same problem. I just about always look through the REG when I have a question, but I have difficulty reading the language. (Which is probably why I will never be a playtester. :P)
I also posted it on page 2.
Ah...yes...well...I didn't exactly read the whole thread. :D
-
The entry for Prevent in the new REG does not contain that language. It does not use the word "card."
If an ability is prevented, its activation cannot begin. If an ability is prevented and its activation has already begun, but it has not completed activation (i.e. it is a pending ability), the completion of the activation of the pending ability is skipped (i.e., it is no longer a pending ability even though it did not complete its activation). An ability can not be prevented if its activation has already completed.
"not yet completed activation" and "pending" both seem to indicate that Prof's interpretation should be followed. However, it could be that "not yet completed" and "pending" are both refering to abilities that have been interrupted, and that triggered abilities were not intended to be treated as "pending."
I'm glad we are looking at rules, but ... which rules? :)
-
Gosh darn to heck the new REG! The inclusion of the word "card" not only makes things simpler, but it also makes me right, so I think it should be used. ;D
-
Thanks for that insight, Bryon. That certainly makes it less clear to me. I'm interested to hear Tim's perspective considering he wrote (or helped write) that section.
-
That makes one of us. I felt like I was reading an amicus brief.
-
Regardless of how it will work under the new REG, this season is still played under the old REG. Correct?
-
Arrogant much? This would have ended on page 1 if it were that cut-and-dried.
-
It works the same for the old and new REG.
What are you talking about? The differences between the two documents are very clear.
-
There are quite a lot of us who read it the other way, and Schaef wasn't so sure about it working the way you say, either.
-
It works the same for the old and new REG.
What are you talking about? The differences between the two documents are very clear.
I already explained the old REG quote.
Where?
-
Allow me to jump in and say this is news to me as well. I thought prevent only worked if you PHYSICALLY played it before the card you are trying to prevent.
Are you all saying that the following situation would be true?
I play great image with a Cannot be Interrupted status in a battle, and my opponent later bands in Moses. Would Moses stop great image even though its CBI.... because he managed to prevent it AFTER THE FACT?
If so, I find this incredibly confusing and it goes against everything I've known about prevents.
Delayed abilities have ALREADY activated, they just don't do anything until their condition is met, but the card has already activated.
-
The card has already activated, it just doesnt do its effect until later.
To provide an example of what I mean:
Antivirus programs are ideally the equivelant of a prevent ability. They prevent viruses from entering your computer at ALL. However, if you turn your antivirus off, you may get a virus that sits there and waits. You failed to prevent it, even though its not currently doing anything to your computer. Later, you turn your Antivirus (prevent) back on, and the virus then activates and destroys your computer (I know some that laugh at most antivirus programs) To kill the virus NOW would be like an interrupt.
See what I mean now? Something can activate but not do anything for a while.
Also, how would you rule my example with CBI Great Image vs Moses?
-
In your example, based on the new REG Moses WOULD prevent the heroes from discard.
I definitely hope you are completely wrong on this.
-
Twice Afflicted is preventing the effect, not the card.
Of course, where the old REG might be interpreted both ways the new REG clears it up completely.
In your example, based on the new REG Moses WOULD prevent the heroes from discard.
Well I'll just say I completely disagree with that ruling.
-
quoting from the new reg is like saying man went to the moon.
-
Allow me to jump in and say this is news to me as well. I thought prevent only worked if you PHYSICALLY played it before the card you are trying to prevent.
That can't be true. If I interrupt and prevent a card, then I interrupt a card, and then prevent it. That's right, I prevent an ability on a card that was already played.
Delayed triggers have two parts: the trigger (which we all agree is activated when it is played), and the ability that kicks in when the trigger is pulled.
The question here is less about prevent, and more about whether that "ability that kicks in when the trigger is pulled" is considered "pending." It sure seems like it to me.
-
I thought interrupt essentially made it like those cards were not even played?
-
I thought interrupt essentially made it like those cards were not even played?
Yeah, interrupt basically says, "Okay, put these cards in Limbo for a sec while I do some other stuff. ... Okay, go ahead and put them back down now."
-
Okay, I'll help you using your analogy:
"Okay, put this special ability in Limbo for awhile while other stuff is done. ... Okay, the trigger was released so go ahead and do that ability now."
Twice Afflicted is not an interrupt. Am I missing something?
-
Am I missing something?
:doh:
That was helpful.
-
Interrupt does not unplay the Card. It pauses an Ability and delays its application, making it "pending."
It seems to me that a triggered ability is doing a similar thing: making the other part of the ability "pending."
If I can prevent an ability that is pending by an interrupt, then can't I prevent an ability that is pending by a trigger?
As Gabe mentioned, I'd like to hear Tim Maly's ideas on this.
-
I cannot help those who do not wish to be helped.
I would love to be helped. I am extremely confused.
-
I cannot help those who do not wish to be helped.
I would love to be helped. I am extremely confused.
Then you simply need to look up at Bryon's post just above.
Bryon's post is helpful, but it doesn't explain this post:
I thought interrupt essentially made it like those cards were not even played?
Yeah, interrupt basically says, "Okay, put these cards in Limbo for a sec while I do some other stuff. ... Okay, go ahead and put them back down now."
Okay, I'll help you using your analogy:
"Okay, put this special ability in Limbo for awhile while other stuff is done. ... Okay, the trigger was released so go ahead and do that ability now."
What are you trying to prove here? I still do not know, and instead of making attempts to help me understand you have made attempts to convince me that I am being ignorant, which I am obviously not being because I am trying to understand.
Why does this have to be so difficult? I ask a simple question and get everything but an answer to it.
-
Interrupt does not unplay the Card. It pauses an Ability and delays its application, making it "pending."
It seems to me that a triggered ability is doing a similar thing: making the other part of the ability "pending."
If I can prevent an ability that is pending by an interrupt, then can't I prevent an ability that is pending by a trigger?
As Gabe mentioned, I'd like to hear Tim Maly's ideas on this.
Yeah... I'm still very opposed to the idea of a Cannot be Interrupted ability being stopped after it has been played. (A CBI Great Image vs a banded in Moses)
-
I gave the answer one way and Bryon another. Same answer, different method of explanation.
mini-schaef, is that you?
-
Remind me again, how was CBP nerfed?
-
Huh? Gimme a card example of what you mean. I honestly don't remember CBP being nerfed.
-
Ahhh I remember now.
Why don't we just make CBI/CBP/CBN statuses more like an abilifier that you cant negate in any way?
-
Hey,
Prevent is a special ability used to preempt (stop) a future card’s special ability.
If an ability is prevented, its activation cannot begin. If an ability is prevented and its activation has already begun, but it has not completed activation (i.e. it is a pending ability), the completion of the activation of the pending ability is skipped (i.e., it is no longer a pending ability even though it did not complete its activation). An ability can not be prevented if its activation has already completed.
This tread brings to light several places where the current REG is truly archaic. That definition of prevent is from a time when cards only had one special ability, because regardless of how many sentences the ability was or how unrelated effects of separate sentences might be, if it was on a single card it was a single special ability. The game was very card centric at the time, everything targeted cards, so naturally the prevent has to target the card and then stop the special ability on that card or the "card's special ability."
The new REG brings a more modern understanding of abilities and targeting. A card can have multiple special abilities and prevents can choose which ones to prevent, so it is (and has to be) the ability not the card that is targeted by a prevent.
This thread also brings up how we handle triggers which is another point where the current REG is painfully out of date. Back in the day we had instant abilities, ongoing abilities, and human actions. A human action was an ability that was "being carried out as we speak" but wasn't an ongoing ability. I think it was 2003 when we decided to do away with human actions and when we did we made all abilities either instant or ongoing. Triggered abilities were human actions that we then categorized as ongoing abilities, which wasn't a great solution at the time and has only gotten worse. The problem being if the triggered ability is a capture ability, capture is instantaneous but triggered is ongoing, so we have one ability that is both instant and ongoing. The instant part supports the "you can prevent it because it hasn't happened yet" argument while the ongoing part supports the "you can't prevent it because it is already doing it's thing" argument.
Tschow,
Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly
-
Hey,
Discussion on the private side of the message board has led to the following solution/explanation:
A pending ability is an ability that has started the process of going into effect but has not completed that process. (Similar to battle resolution, the process of a card going into effect is technically instantaneous but practically still has multiple stages). Usually an ability starts the process of going into effect and then immediately completes it, so it is a pending ability for a negligible (or you could even argue non-existent) period of time.
There are three reasons that an ability could end up being a pending ability for a significant amount of time:
(1) Multiple abilities activate together. This is the classic order of operations issue. A hero with multiple abilities enters battle, all of those abilities are then activated, but they have to be carried out one at a time. The order of operations says which one is carried out first. All of the abilities on the card that are not activated first become pending abilities until the first ability is carried out. Once the first ability is done the game looks at all of the pending abilities, decides which one happens next and carries it out; repeating this process until there are no remaining pending abilities to carry out.
(2) An ability is interrupted. Interrupting an ability undoes the completion of the ability, "pauses" the ability at a point before it is completed and inserts some other effect. At the point when the ability is "paused" it is a pending ability, we undid the carrying out part (so the ability is waiting to re-do the carrying out part) but we didn't undo the fact that the card activated. Once the "some other effect" is inserted we go back to the interrupted ability (the pending ability) and re-complete it (if possible).
(3) An ability has a trigger. When you play an ability with a trigger it activates immediately, but you can't complete it until the trigger is satisfied. The trigger forces the ability to sit as a pending ability ("in limbo" if you will) until the trigger happens, at which point the ability ceases to be a pending ability and is carried out.
As the new REG definition of prevent says you can prevent an ability that is pending. If you use Tower on Messenger of Satan when he enters battle the banding ability becomes pending and the prevent ability from Tower kicks in which then stops the banding ability from happening. If my opponent plays Achan's Sin, I can play Battle Cry to band in Shamhuth which results in Battle Cry interrupting Achan's Sin, making Achan's Sin pending and then while Achan's Sin is pending Shamhuth prevents it (this is how all interrupt and prevent abilities end up effectively negating things).
And the example that is applicable here, Momentum change has a triggered ability making it a pending ability until the end of battle so Twice Afflicted can be played during battle to prevent it.
While this is a new REG concept it doesn't conflict with any current REG statements so this should be considered to be effective immediately.
Tschow,
Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly
-
I have an issue with that idea.
If an interrupted ability is treated the same way as a triggered ability in that they are both "pending"... then Devourer shouldn't negate anything. If I play Aarons Rod to simply discard Great Image, my heroes are still discarded at the end of the battle right? Why would interrupting (now read as: causing an ability to be pending) and discarding be any different?
-
Hey,
If an interrupted ability is treated the same way as a triggered ability in that they are both "pending"... then Devourer shouldn't negate anything. If I play Aarons Rod to simply discard Great Image, my heroes are still discarded at the end of the battle right? Why would interrupting (now read as: causing an ability to be pending) and discarding be any different?
You should read the interrupt entry of the new REG. While interrupted and yet to be triggered abilities are both pending, they resolve out of the pending state in different ways. Abilities that are pending because of triggers or order of operations went through a "is playable" check right before they became pending, and thus they do not have to pass the check when they leave the pending state. Abilities that are pending because they were interrupted do not go through a "is playable" check right before they became pending abilities and instead face that check when they leave the pending state.
Tschow,
Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly
-
Based on a proper understanding of the term, absolutely.
-
The answer to your question is yes. People take the term to mean something other than what it means. In doing so, they create their own contradictions.
-
I agree with Stamp. Twice I've tried to write out a detailed logical explanation of this problem but both times the computer deleted it. Ironically, I guess I was prevented after I wrote it.
In Sirnobody's Battle Cry/ Shamhuth example, if Achan's Sin was CBP, would it still be stopped? So you would say that the CBP ability would end up being prevented, right? Despite that being counterintuitive, I think your response would be that the prevent came after and CBP only is shielded against things played before it, so the prevent works. The basic problem is that in the old Reg definitions, prevent only stops things played after it so for it to target Achan's Sin the prevent would have to be played before it. Also in the old Reg, interrupt was indicated to make the things with interrupt be played before what it was interrupting. That is how the prevent stopped things played before it; the interrupt made the prevent be played before the ability it targets. But if it is played before its target then CBP should not be prevented by the prevent.
The definitions were at some point paradoxical.
On a related note, what happens if I do a large Babel band, play an end the battle card off of horses in the middle and have a CBP ability on a character at the end of the chain? The definition of CBP says it can't be stopped by something before it so does Forgotten History played before it stop it anyway? Unless you are going to let the ability work, you might need to alter the definition.
-
I also remember reading somewhere that end the battle abilities stop pending abilities (I think it was in relation to the archers, horses, Forgotten History scenario). In the past if I played Great Image and then played Forgotten History, Great Image would still work but if it is now pending like interrupted abilities then will it be stopped? This does not seem right.
-
Also in the old Reg, interrupt was indicated to make the things with interrupt be played before what it was interrupting.
No. The EFFECT of the additional abilities take effect before the previous card. The card itself was not "played before". Remember the rule about negate: you can un-do an effect, but you cannot un-play a card.
On a related note, what happens if I do a large Babel band, play an end the battle card off of horses in the middle and have a CBP ability on a character at the end of the chain?
The battle ends and any effects not used have no effect. They were not prevented.
The definition of CBP says it can't be stopped by something before it so does Forgotten History played before it stop it anyway?
Special abilities that are specifically designed to "stop other abilities" are: prevent, interrupt, negate. That's all.
Cannot be prevented is a counter to the prevent special ability. If you take the definition so literally as to mean that absolutely no ability can ever cause that effect not to happen, you break the game; a CBP card could not be interrupted-plus-anything'd.
This concept only becomes complicated when it is made so.
I also remember reading somewhere that end the battle abilities stop pending abilities (I think it was in relation to the archers, horses, Forgotten History scenario). In the past if I played Great Image and then played Forgotten History, Great Image would still work but if it is now pending like interrupted abilities then will it be stopped? This does not seem right.
If both an interrupted ability and a triggered ability are both labeled as "pending" and pending abilities are treated the same way, then I'm inclined to agree with this logic.
-
Schaef-
Cannot be prevented is a counter to the prevent special ability. If you take the definition so literally as to mean that absolutely no ability can ever cause that effect not to happen, you break the game; a CBP card could not be interrupted-plus-anything'd.
can you explain this statement to me? I am misreading it I think.
-
I mean that if you interrupt the ability and discarded the card, you would be indirectly preventing its effect; discarding the card before the effect would stop it from happening, a pseudo-"prevent" of sorts.
Clearly that is not the idea behind cannot-be-prevented. Prevent stops a special ability and cannot-be-prevented stops the prevent ability. Not just anything that might stop its effect, e.g. ending the battle.