Cactus Game Design Message Boards
Redemption® Collectible Trading Card Game HQ => Official Rules & Errata => Ruling Questions => Topic started by: RTSmaniac on June 16, 2011, 08:25:35 PM
-
http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/ruling-questions/sites-and-lost-souls/120/ (http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/ruling-questions/sites-and-lost-souls/120/)
5. Can Golgotha stop No Need for Spices after Spices is played?
Golgotha (Di)
Special Ability: Anytime during battle, you may place a skull icon card from hand or discard pile on Golgotha: N.T. characters of that brigade cannot be ignored. Return that card to its previous location at end of turn.
No Need for Spices (RA)
Special Ability: Negate evil immunity. Female N.T. Heroes ignore one evil brigade in battle.
-
After RTSM's edit, I'm not sure anymore.
-
Why not?
-
My main line of reasoning back then was that Golgotha doesn't interrupt NNfS so even if it grants the EC CBIg status after NNfS is played the EC is already being ignored and the hero winning the battle.
I still hold to this opinion at this time.
-
But if Golgotha doesn't work on No Need for Spices why should it work on Garden Tomb? It doesn't interrupt either of those and they only gain the Cannot be Ignored status after they are being ignored.
-
Because TGT isn't (necessarily) affecting battle outcome, it's affecting who can block. An EC played from hand can block after ET + AoCP decimates your in-play ECs without interrupting AoCP. An EC cannot be played from hand to change the outcome of AoCP played after an EC blocks. An enhancement placed on Golgotha can allow your EC to block without interrupting TGT. I don't see why an enhancement placed on Golgotha after NNfS should undo an ignore played after an EC blocks without interrupting NNfS.
-
Yeah, that didn't make any sense.
@RTSM, CBIg is its own brand of ability, in spite of the muddled "cannot be" phrasing. It's not protection or immunity from being ignored, it's a totally outre ability. All four functions of Ignore pay no attention to and are paid no attention by a CBIg character.
-
People complained about ignore being too powerful, but Pol's definition of CBIg is so much worse than ignore ever was. An ability that gets around negates, interrupts, and prevents that can be used anytime you want? That's like the definition of overpowered.
Yeah, that didn't make any sense.
It makes perfect sense if you're willing to think about it.
-
Ignore is op, but the counter to ignore is more op... wat.
-
Well, I don't agree with people that said ignore (as an ability) was too powerful, so the fact that CBIg is apparently uber powerful seems like a thousand-foot-thick wall to stop one 9mm bullet. Pre-block ignore was bad, yes, but even that doesn't deserve CBIg being outside all other game rules. They could have made CBIg work against pre-block ignore without neutering in-battle ignores (which were perfectly balanced), so is it so wrong for me to hope they can rule Golgotha that way?
-
Well, I don't agree with people that said ignore (as an ability) was too powerful, so the fact that CBIg is apparently uber powerful seems like a thousand-foot-thick wall to stop one 9mm bullet. Pre-block ignore was bad, yes, but even that doesn't deserve CBIg being outside all other game rules. They could have made CBIg work against pre-block ignore without neutering in-battle ignores (which were perfectly balanced), so is it so wrong for me to hope they can rule Golgotha that way?
How could they have neutered preblock ignore without touching in-battle ignore? They are the exact same thing. The only difference is, if you are preblock ignored, you are not allowed to add a character to battle to negate the ignore ability. If you happen to have a character already in battle when the ignore happens, you are fortunate enough to have a chance to negate it or play some other enhancement to stop the rescue.
CBIg is not OP. It only counters a very small percentage of offensive battlewinners. If you make a deck that cannot win if your opponent has ignore counters, then I would argue that your deck is too one-dimensional. If you make a one-dimensional deck, you need to accept that your deck has an inherent "riskiness" to it. People who make FBTN or FBTNB decks risk facing Holy of Holies, Golden Calf, Confusion of Mind, Asherah Pole, Household Idols, The Trap of the Devil, etc. Are all cards that hard-counter an offensive strategy OP?
-
some are. tgt was a hard counter to splash defenses. ;)
-
Are all cards that hard-counter an offensive strategy OP?
If they ignore (irony intended) all other game rules, then yes.
-
Are all cards that hard-counter an offensive strategy OP?
If they ignore (irony intended) all other game rules, then yes.
But CBIg doesn't ignore game rules. Think about it this way. Each special ability (capture something, discard something, negate something, ignore something, etc) has an unwritten clause that says "...except targets that cannot be captured/discarded/negated/ignored)".
Bringing Fear says "Negate all special abilities on characters and good enhancements", but what it really means is "Negate all special abilities on characters and good enhancements, except abilities that cannot be negated". That's why Bringing Fear won't negate Zeal for the Lord if it is played on Phinehas or Josh the HP.
Zeal for the Lord says "Interrupt the battle and discard two evil characters of different brigades", but what it really means is "Interrupt the battle and discard two evil characters of different brigades, except characters that cannot be discarded (i.e., protected from discard)". That's why Zeal won't discard Judas Iscariot.
No Need for Spices says "Ignore one evil brigade in battle", but what it really means is "Ignore one brigade in battle, except characters that cannot be ignored". That's why NNFS won't ignore Persians when Haman's Gallows is in play, or a character with Hating the Light placed on it, or any NT evil character when Golgotha has an EE placed on it.
The word "cannot" in a special ability has been played this way ever since CBN was created. Ignore abilities are not the same ability as negate or discard, but when it comes to the word "cannot", why would it be any different?
-
If Golgotha already has an enhancement on it when I play NNfS I would agree with you, but that's not what I'm talking about. If Golgotha does NOT have an enhancement so ECs do NOT have CBIg already is the situation I'm referring to.
Once an enhancement is played, nothing can change what it does unless you interrupt/negate the enhancement. If I capture you or remove you or return you to hand/deck, you can't undo that unless you interrupt/negate. I don't see why Golgotha can undo an ignore without interrupting/negating NNfS.
-
A card with a cannot-be-negated ability can be played before or after the negate without consequence.
How is this different/worse?
-
If Golgotha already has an enhancement on it when I play NNfS I would agree with you, but that's not what I'm talking about. If Golgotha does NOT have an enhancement so ECs do NOT have CBIg already is the situation I'm referring to.
Once an enhancement is played, nothing can change what it does unless you interrupt/negate the enhancement. If I capture you or remove you or return you to hand/deck, you can't undo that unless you interrupt/negate. I don't see why Golgotha can undo an ignore without interrupting/negating NNfS.
Like I said, you need to think of NNFS with a "...except evil characters that cannot be ignored" clause. Putting an EE on Golgotha does not undo/negate the ignore. MMoJ/Salome & company will still ignore OT ECs. It just means NT ECs of the color EE can't be ignored.
-
Once an enhancement is played, nothing can change what it does unless you interrupt/negate the enhancement. If I capture you or remove you or return you to hand/deck, you can't undo that unless you interrupt/negate. I don't see why Golgotha can undo an ignore without interrupting/negating NNfS.
Instead allows you to change what an enhancement does without interrupting/negating.
-
But CBIg doesn't ignore game rules. Think about it this way. Each special ability (capture something, discard something, negate something, ignore something, etc) has an unwritten clause that says "...except targets that cannot be captured/discarded/negated/ignored)".
The targets for the ignore were already chosen. By your logic, think of it this way:
"Golgotha targets certain characters to not be ignored, except those targets that are already being ignored."
If I play a capture card in battle, then you somehow activated a new card that says, "My characters cannot be captured," that would not stop the capture that activated before you played your new card. I agree with Browarod that if the original SA is not being interrupted, then the targetted characters cannot gain a status that they did not already have.
-
The biggest difference between abilities like Capture and Discard and Ignore is that Ignore is ongoing while Capture and Discard are instantaneous, you can't activate abilities until instantaneous ones complete (with the exception of interrupt/negate if you are losing by removal) whereas you can activate abilities after an Ignore ability is active.
-
The biggest difference between abilities like Capture and Discard and Ignore is that Ignore is ongoing while Capture and Discard are instantaneous, you can't activate abilities until instantaneous ones complete (with the exception of interrupt/negate if you are losing by removal) whereas you can activate abilities after an Ignore ability is active.
Then why does Immune not work after an Ignore, but it does work before the Ignore? Clearly there is a difference between cards played before and after an Ignore.
-
An ignored character already is not affected by the ignoring character. Immune after ignore has no net effect.
-
An ignored character already is not affected by the ignoring character. Immune after ignore has no net effect.
I was responding to ChristianSoldier to show that ongoing vs. instant abilities is not the issue here.
You can respond to my post before ChristianSoldier's, if you wish.
-
I was responding to ChristianSoldier to show that ongoing vs. instant abilities is not the issue here.
You can respond to my post before ChristianSoldier's, if you wish.
I'm not in a particular hurry to respond to his post because I don't see a fault in his logic. There is a fault in your counter-example, though, because it is not that immune CANNOT do anything, it's just that its effect DOES nothing.
Your question "why" has an answer which does not disprove his point. The example I provided, the behavior of cannot-be-negated cards, also works when played after an active ongoing ability has taken effect. But a cannot-be-interrupted card would not work against a particular interrupt if it were possible to play it after that interrupt had already been played, because the interrupt effect ends when the ability is resolved.
-
I'm not in a particular hurry to respond to his post because I don't see a fault in his logic.
I meant my post before his. ;D
There is a fault in your counter-example, though, because it is not that immune CANNOT do anything, it's just that its effect DOES nothing.
I fail to see the difference. The opponent tries to play an immunity card, and it doesn't work. The point is that trying to play a card that works against an ignore after the ignore has been played does nothing.
-
But not because it's the same as capture.
His post is the response I would give to your prior post. If a card is already captured, that instant ability is already resolved and you can't protect it anyway. But if an ability is negated, and I play a cannot-be-negated card after it, that card works. Which, incidentally, was an example I used in my post before your post before his post.
-
So we're saying that if an opponent ignores a heretic in battle, then that heretic plays wolves in sheep's clothing, he is no longer ignored (he's not interrupting). Though it may be correct, this really doesn't make much "Redemption sense" to me. Or does this have to do with the fact that Golgotha is an outside ability (not being used by the EC that is being ignored).
-
Nope, your example is correct. WiSC would counter NNfS played in battle. Stop trying to think of it in terms of negates or protection or other abilities and it will make more sense. CBIg is a fairly new ability (it's been around since AW but nobody's really used it much at all until this season), so it will take a bit of getting used to, but if you tell yourself it's not weird it won't be weird.
-
Nope, your example is correct. WiSC would counter NNfS played in battle. Stop trying to think of it in terms of negates or protection or other abilities and it will make more sense. CBIg is a fairly new ability (it's been around since AW but nobody's really used it much at all until this season), so it will take a bit of getting used to, but if you tell yourself it's not weird it won't be weird.
It's weird. :P
However, I think I finally see what y'all are saying. I was trying to think of examples that would make it make more sense. What makes sense to me (and perhaps to Browarod and others who still disagree with the ruling) is the idea of a lone hero starting a RA and being blocked by Emperor Nero. Nero is now immune. However, if the lone hero plays a banding enhancement, then Nero is no longer immune to the first hero, even though the immunity was not negated.
Zebulun would be another example. Zebulun can begin a rescue with the player having 5 cards in hand. The blocking EC could have a toughness of 4 and not be ignored. The rescuing player could play (or otherwise legally remove) 2 cards from hand to ignore the EC in battle. However, the blocking player could play a card that forces the opponent to draw cards back to a hand of 5, and now Zebulun would not be ignoring the EC in battle again. In that regard, ignore and immune are dynamic and can change throughout the battle, without using any interrupts.
Likewise, a character can gain the status of not being ignored, even if he was being ignored, even without an interrupt.
-
I like where you are going. You can think of Ignore being dynamic. It constantly looks at the ignored characters to make sure they can still be ignored. If something changes, the ignore status changes. In this case, even though NNfS is still an active ignore, after I place an EE on Golgotha, the ignore status of the battle changes because now my NT EC can not be ignored.
-
Nope, your example is correct. WiSC would counter NNfS played in battle. Stop trying to think of it in terms of negates or protection or other abilities and it will make more sense. CBIg is a fairly new ability (it's been around since AW but nobody's really used it much at all until this season), so it will take a bit of getting used to, but if you tell yourself it's not weird it won't be weird.
It's weird. :P
However, I think I finally see what y'all are saying. I was trying to think of examples that would make it make more sense. What makes sense to me (and perhaps to Browarod and others who still disagree with the ruling) is the idea of a lone hero starting a RA and being blocked by Emperor Nero. Nero is now immune. However, if the lone hero plays a banding enhancement, then Nero is no longer immune to the first hero, even though the immunity was not negated.
Zebulun would be another example. Zebulun can begin a rescue with the player having 5 cards in hand. The blocking EC could have a toughness of 4 and not be ignored. The rescuing player could play (or otherwise legally remove) 2 cards from hand to ignore the EC in battle. However, the blocking player could play a card that forces the opponent to draw cards back to a hand of 5, and now Zebulun would not be ignoring the EC in battle again. In that regard, ignore and immune are dynamic and can change throughout the battle, without using any interrupts.
Likewise, a character can gain the status of not being ignored, even if he was being ignored, even without an interrupt.
Finally, an explanation that just makes sense! Thanks, YMT.
-
It's weird. :P
However, I think I finally see what y'all are saying. I was trying to think of examples that would make it make more sense. What makes sense to me (and perhaps to Browarod and others who still disagree with the ruling) is the idea of a lone hero starting a RA and being blocked by Emperor Nero. Nero is now immune. However, if the lone hero plays a banding enhancement, then Nero is no longer immune to the first hero, even though the immunity was not negated.
Zebulun would be another example. Zebulun can begin a rescue with the player having 5 cards in hand. The blocking EC could have a toughness of 4 and not be ignored. The rescuing player could play (or otherwise legally remove) 2 cards from hand to ignore the EC in battle. However, the blocking player could play a card that forces the opponent to draw cards back to a hand of 5, and now Zebulun would not be ignoring the EC in battle again. In that regard, ignore and immune are dynamic and can change throughout the battle, without using any interrupts.
Likewise, a character can gain the status of not being ignored, even if he was being ignored, even without an interrupt.
The problem with those examples is that they are different circumstances than NNfS. Zebulun ignores or doesn't ignore based on his own ability, Nero is immune or not immune based on his own ability. Those ongoing abilities have conditions/triggers within themselves that can change during battle, which makes them dynamic. NNfS does not. I play NNfS, I choose an evil brigade in battle to ignore, and that's that. Spices makes my NT females ignore that brigade unconditionally, there's nothing variable or dynamic about it. Ongoing yes, dynamic no.
The biggest difference between abilities like Capture and Discard and Ignore is that Ignore is ongoing while Capture and Discard are instantaneous, you can't activate abilities until instantaneous ones complete (with the exception of interrupt/negate if you are losing by removal) whereas you can activate abilities after an Ignore ability is active.
Immunity and protection are ongoing, you still need an interrupt/negate to change those. Why is ignore any different?
Instead allows you to change what an enhancement does without interrupting/negating.
You are correct. However, Golgotha is not an instead, so it doesn't really change anything in this discussion.
-
Ignore is a status. If something about the situation changes (for example, what is being ignored gains a can not be ignored status), the ignore changes even though it was not negated. This is one of the ways it is like immune.
-
Ignore is a status. If something about the situation changes (for example, what is being ignored gains a can not be ignored status), the ignore changes even though it was not negated. This is one of the ways it is like immune.
I agree with your first and third statements. Your second statement does not agree with your third statement, nor do I agree with it. If I'm unconditionally immune to you (Red Dragon vs a human hero, for example) there is nothing you can do to change that without interrupting or negating Red Dragon's ability. If your hero could somehow gain "cannot be immune to" status, that wouldn't change the fact that Red Dragon is already immune to them. No reason has been given as to why ignore should be treated any differently.
-
Immunity and protection are ongoing, you still need an interrupt/negate to change those. Why is ignore any different?
A card with a cannot-be-negated ability can be played before or after the negate without consequence.
How is this different/worse?
-
How is that at all the same as this? This discussion is about a status being granted after the fact, not about when something with a status is played.
-
I don't understand your question. If I play a cannot-be-negated card after a negate ability has taken effect, how is that NOT granting a status after the fact?
-
Because it doesn't affect the cards played before it? Faith in Our High Priest doesn't un-negate an enhancement played and negated previous to it.
-
Because it doesn't affect the cards played before it? Faith in Our High Priest doesn't un-negate an enhancement played and negated previous to it.
Right, because the card was already played at that time and took whatever effect it was able to take at that time.
As others have pointed out to you, being ignored is a state that can be turned on and off by certain conditions. Being negated is not a state, its an effect that cancels another effect. So your argument about it not giving the card its (negated) effect doesn't apply to this situation.
-
My comparison was that a battle where a card is granted "cannot be negated" state after it's already been negated doesn't get changed at all so a battle where a card gains "cannot be ignored" state after it's already being ignored shouldn't either. How exactly does that not apply?
Yes, ignore is a state, I've never denied that. In fact, I've sad as much myself several times now. However, immunity is also a state, protection is also a state, yet neither of those can be changed without interrupting/negating the state-changing ability. Why is ignore different?
-
How exactly does that not apply?
Because...
Yes, ignore is a state, I've never denied that. In fact, I've sad as much myself several times now.
However, immunity is also a state, protection is also a state, yet neither of those can be changed without interrupting/negating the state-changing ability. Why is ignore different?
This is not about the ignore ability. This is about the cannot-be-ignored ability. Just like cannot-be-negated is not about the negate ability but about what you're applying to the new card. I notice that you changed in mid-stream again, and went from talking about negate back to talking about immune. The fact that negate is not on your list tells you exactly what is different about the two cannot-be-something'd cards.
-
I have always held that ignore was a state, and have made my arguments with that in mind, so the fact that ignore is indeed a state, as I've said, doesn't contradict or invalidate anything I've said since I've held that as an understood point.
Wait, so, ignore is a state but cannot be ignored is an ability? How does that work? One would think they'd be opposite ends of the same state spectrum.
Also, if cannot be negated applied to a negated card doesn't change anything, why does cannot be ignored change anything about an ignored card?
-
The problem with those examples is that they are different circumstances than NNfS. Zebulun ignores or doesn't ignore based on his own ability, Nero is immune or not immune based on his own ability. Those ongoing abilities have conditions/triggers within themselves that can change during battle, which makes them dynamic. NNfS does not. I play NNfS, I choose an evil brigade in battle to ignore, and that's that. Spices makes my NT females ignore that brigade unconditionally, there's nothing variable or dynamic about it. Ongoing yes, dynamic no.
If there was a way to change the brigade of a character in battle, would NNfS then be dynamic? The examples I gave are only different because you see them as different. I do not.
Immunity and protection are ongoing, you still need an interrupt/negate to change those. Why is ignore any different?
I gave you examples already about how you do not need an interrupt to undo an ignore. You are now choosing not to listen.
-
so the fact that ignore is indeed a state, as I've said, doesn't contradict or invalidate anything I've said since I've held that as an understood point.
For the third time, it answers your question about how it's differs from cannot-be-negated.
Wait, so, ignore is a state but cannot be ignored is an ability? How does that work?
Ignore is an ability that sets the state of being ignored. Cannot-be-ignored is an ability that turns off the state for the cards listed.
Also, if cannot be negated applied to a negated card doesn't change anything, why does cannot be ignored change anything about an ignored card?
I answered this question already. Please refer to my previous posts.
-
think of it as a lightswitch. when you are being ignored, the lightswitch is on. cannot be ignored is simply turning the lightswitch off. you do not have to go back in time to turn off the lightswitch.
-
think of it as a lightswitch. when you are being ignored, the lightswitch is on. cannot be ignored is simply turning the lightswitch off. you do not have to go back in time to turn off the lightswitch.
Actually, in my living room, there are two different light switches that affect the same light. So, for this thread's example, I can turn on the light switch in the hallway (turn on ignore). Later, I could turn that light off (cannot be ignored) by flipping the light switch by the couch. The first light switch has not been affected and is in the same position, but it no longer does what I wanted it to do.
-
The problem with those examples is that they are different circumstances than NNfS. Zebulun ignores or doesn't ignore based on his own ability, Nero is immune or not immune based on his own ability. Those ongoing abilities have conditions/triggers within themselves that can change during battle, which makes them dynamic. NNfS does not. I play NNfS, I choose an evil brigade in battle to ignore, and that's that. Spices makes my NT females ignore that brigade unconditionally, there's nothing variable or dynamic about it. Ongoing yes, dynamic no.
If there was a way to change the brigade of a character in battle, would NNfS then be dynamic? The examples I gave are only different because you see them as different. I do not.
Immunity and protection are ongoing, you still need an interrupt/negate to change those. Why is ignore any different?
I gave you examples already about how you do not need an interrupt to undo an ignore. You are now choosing not to listen.
You honestly don't think one card with a condition and one card without a condition are different? If there was a way to convert an EC's brigade, that would not make NNfS dynamic because it would still be sitting there ignoring the brigade I chose. Nothing about NNfS can change, therefore I don't see how it could possibly fit the definition of dynamic. It doesn't take an English degree to see that, so I truthfully don't know how you can say this is just me seeing incorrectly.
What I am choosing to do is attempt to show you that your examples, while correct in and of themselves, do not apply to the issue at hand since they, not in my opinion but in fact, are actually different. If you're so sure that NNfS is dynamic, show me the X in the special ability with a corresponding "X=_____" in the identifier line, show me "as long as", "while", "if used by", or any other words that could mean something about the ability could change at anytime after activation. If you can't, then maybe I'm not the one choosing not to listen. They are good examples, and I'm not arguing your point in general (I completely agree with their use when used appropriately), I'm just trying to show that it doesn't apply to this discussion. I have the utmost respect for your ability to explain things clearly.
For the third time, it answers your question about how it's differs from cannot-be-negated.
Ignore is an ability that sets the state of being ignored. Cannot-be-ignored is an ability that turns off the state for the cards listed.
For the umpteenth time, that doesn't actually answer my question. I have provided examples of how other states require interrupts or negates in order to "change the lightswitch" yet you have continued to harp on only the point that ignore and cannot be ignored are states. I know they're states, nobody's disputing that, but that doesn't explain why this and only this state can bypass all other games rules (something not even dominants can do) and be changed (or in the case of the cannot be ignored state: applied) without an interrupt/negate. Captured is a state, immune is a state, cannot be negated is a state, removed from the game is a state, converted is a state, yet none of those can be reversed/applied after another ability has been played without an interrupt or negate. I'm simply wondering why the state of cannot be ignored gets to supersede game rules to do whatever it wants whenever it wants to. That seems overpowered to me, even more so than TGT ever was to begin with. And THAT is the problem I see with the entirety of how "cannot be ignored" as an ability that applies a state functions. Not even dominants are that powerful.
-
I have provided examples of how other states require interrupts or negates in order to "change the lightswitch"
No, they do not. They require an interrupt or negate to cancel the effect. So does ignore.
"Immune to lone Heroes" does not require an interrupt to change the state of being immune-to'd. If I band in a second Hero, you are no longer immune, and I did not interrupt your ability, I just made it so your condition no longer applied to my character.
but that doesn't explain why this and only this state can bypass all other games rules (something not even dominants can do)
The only way it "bypasses" the game rule is in the same way cannot-be-negated "bypasses" a negate effect. The cards that cannot be ignored... cannot be ignored.
Oh, and by the way, immune actually does have a counter-effect similar to this. Look for cards like Plague of Frogs or Testing Solomon's Wisdom, that apply an effect "regardless of immunity".
I'm simply wondering why the state of cannot be ignored gets to supersede game rules to do whatever it wants whenever it wants to.
It's not doing anything different than banding a second Hero against Nero, or converting the brigade of an ignored character (circumstances are narrow but it can be done with current cards). All it's doing is flipping off the switch on the cards under its effect.
That seems overpowered to me.
The ability to not be affected by a single type of effect? Really?
-
Not even Dominants are as powerful as Golgotha? lolwut? You can't seriously think that.
-
No, they do not. They require an interrupt or negate to cancel the effect. So does ignore.
That's exactly what I'm saying, though. Canceling the effect, or granting a counter-status (not reversing a status, a counter-status) such as becoming immune to an immune or an ignoring character, is the only way to change the current battle outcome of all other states in the game. If I'm immune to you, sure you can play whatever cards you want, they just don't affect the immune character and can't make that character be losing the battle (by special ability) unless you interrupt/negate/regardless the immunity. Ignore creates a similar situation except I don't need to constantly pass initiative for you to continue playing cards, you just get infinite initiative (for whatever reason). If you play something to be immune to my hero ignoring you, yes that changes the battle to a stalemate (because it was ruled that way), but it doesn't change the fact that I'm still ignoring you. If you interrupt the battle and become immune to me, THEN that changes my ignore.
"Immune to lone Heroes" does not require an interrupt to change the state of being immune-to'd. If I band in a second Hero, you are no longer immune, and I did not interrupt your ability, I just made it so your condition no longer applied to my character.
As I've been trying to explain to YMT, that is a completely different scenario. Your conditional immunity can change because, by definition, it has a condition within itself. NNfS has no such condition.
The only way it "bypasses" the game rule is in the same way cannot-be-negated "bypasses" a negate effect. The cards that cannot be ignored... cannot be ignored.
Yet cannot be negated is not able to flip the lightswitch of something already negated, so why can cannot be ignored flip the lightswitch of something already ignored?
Oh, and by the way, immune actually does have a counter-effect similar to this. Look for cards like Plague of Frogs or Testing Solomon's Wisdom, that apply an effect "regardless of immunity".
Do Golgotha or Wolves in Sheep's Clothing say "regardless"? No? Then your example doesn't apply to this situation unless you can cite specific Elder confirmation that Golgotha and Wolves are treated as regardless abilities.
It's not doing anything different than banding a second Hero against Nero, or converting the brigade of an ignored character (circumstances are narrow but it can be done with current cards). All it's doing is flipping off the switch on the cards under its effect.
As I already said, Nero and the like are not the same as this situation, not to mention the fact that still doesn't explain why, as I've been trying to point out but you seem to be glossing over, this ability, and this ability alone, can unflip a lightswitch of an already-played status-granting card that hasn't been negated, interrupted, regardlessed, or insteaded. Nothing else can do that, not even dominants, and THAT is what I find overpowered. Not that a card is a counter to one kind of special ability, that it can bypass rules that have been in place for years that not even the most powerful type of card can bypass.
The ability to not be affected by a single type of effect? Really?
See above and below.
Not even Dominants are as powerful as Golgotha? lolwut? You can't seriously think that.
Dominants cannot undo statuses or abilities of other cards or be played after an enhancement to undo that enhancement without interrupting/negating/insteading/regardlessing said enhancement. How is Golgotha NOT more powerful than dominants since it apparently can do all those things when they can't?
-
That's exactly what I'm saying, though. Canceling the effect, or granting a counter-status (not reversing a status, a counter-status) such as becoming immune to an immune or an ignoring character, is the only way to change the current battle outcome of all other states in the game.
Actually, that's not exactly what you're saying because you just said like three times in a row that an interrupt or negate IS REQUIRED. My examples show this is not the case.
Ignore creates a similar situation except I don't need to constantly pass initiative for you to continue playing cards, you just get infinite initiative (for whatever reason).
The reason is because ignoring is a winning state. Therefore, the ignored character is losing the battle and has initiative.
If you play something to be immune to my hero ignoring you, yes that changes the battle to a stalemate (because it was ruled that way)
This is not correct. The REG clearly states that the ignoring character wins because an immune ability played afterwards has no net effect.
Your conditional immunity can change because, by definition, it has a condition within itself. NNfS has no such condition.
NNfS doesn't need the condition. "Cannot be ignored" establishes a condition to which ignore does not apply. Just like banding in a Hero establishes a condition to which Nero does not apply. You keep talking about how it's on a different card but you're not making an argument for why the genesis of the condition matters. These cards experienced a change in condition that removes them from the blanket of the ignore effect. That's all.
Yet cannot be negated is not able to flip the lightswitch of something already negated, so why can cannot be ignored flip the lightswitch of something already ignored?
For the fourth time, because the ignore is an ongoing ability that has not been resolved. Just like an active prevent that you can play a "cannot-be-prevented" card over. Just like an active immunity that you can play a "regardless of immunity" over. These abilities are ONGOING AND ACTIVE. Your example is an ability that was RESOLVED.
Do Golgotha or Wolves in Sheep's Clothing say "regardless"? No? Then your example doesn't apply to this situation unless you can cite specific Elder confirmation that Golgotha and Wolves are treated as regardless abilities.
Your argument makes no sense. I told you that there are examples of other cards that get around abilities without interrupting them and you mash them together into a question that I just can't figure out. What does this have anything to do with what I said? At all?
as I've been trying to point out but you seem to be glossing over, this ability, and this ability alone, can unflip a lightswitch of an already-played status-granting card that hasn't been negated, interrupted, regardlessed, or insteaded.
I'm not "glossing over" anything. You keep changing your argument. "YOU HAVE TO NEGATE". No, because these abilities say "instead". "YOU HAVE TO NEGATE OR INSTEAD". No, because these abilities say "regardless". "YOU HAVE TO NEGATE OR INSTEAD OR REGARDLESS". ... what?
To sum up:
- Your post immediately before this one said that you REQUIRED A NEGATE in order to make a card not immune. This statement is completely incorrect, and now you're trying to change it into something different.
- Your complaint about cannot-be-ignored is that it is THE ONLY EFFECT that does what it does. This statement is completely incorrect, and you're trying to avoid that fact by lumping in cards that DO NOT cancel the effect with other cards that DO cancel the effect.
- Negate cancels an effect. Interrupt stops an effect long enough to do something else that may remove it, effectively being the same as cancelling.
- Cannot be negated does not cancel an effect. It goes around the effect without cancelling. If a prevent is active and ongoing, you can still play this kind of card. The prior cancelling of a card is resolved and no longer active.
- Instead does not cancel the effect. It changes the effect into something else when certain conditions for the intended target are met.
- Regardless of immunity does not cancel the effect. It goes around the effect without cancelling. If an immune is active and ongoing, this card can affect cards that have already been set as immune.
- Cannot be ignored does not cancel the effect. It goes around the effect without cancelling. If an ignore is active and ongoing, this card turns off the ignored status when certain conditions for the intended target are met.
-
Actually, that's not exactly what you're saying because you just said like three times in a row that an interrupt or negate IS REQUIRED. My examples show this is not the case.
Your examples show exceptions to that rule, of which Golgotha is not since it is not an instead nor a regardless. My statements are not in disagreement.
This is not correct. The REG clearly states that the ignoring character wins because an immune ability played afterwards has no net effect.
My apologies, I had that backwards. It doesn't invalidate my argument, though, it just makes one less exception to the rule I'm using.
NNfS doesn't need the condition. "Cannot be ignored" establishes a condition to which ignore does not apply. Just like banding in a Hero establishes a condition to which Nero does not apply. You keep talking about how it's on a different card but you're not making an argument for why the genesis of the condition matters. These cards experienced a change in condition that removes them from the blanket of the ignore effect. That's all.
The origin of the condition is all important. You're saying that a condition within a card itself being changed because the condition being checked changes is the same as my card's unchanging ability being changed by an outside card (that is not an instead). Clearly they are not. And if they are not the same, then you cannot use precedent of the former to try and justify the latter.
Your argument makes no sense. I told you that there are examples of other cards that get around abilities without interrupting them and you mash them together into a question that I just can't figure out. What does this have anything to do with what I said? At all?
It makes sense when you take the time to think about it instead of immediately passing it off as ludicrous. Golgotha does not say "regardless" therefore a ruling about cards that say "regardless", much like my point above, cannot be used as precedent to prove your point about Golgotha.
I'm not "glossing over" anything. You keep changing your argument. "YOU HAVE TO NEGATE". No, because these abilities say "instead". "YOU HAVE TO NEGATE OR INSTEAD". No, because these abilities say "regardless". "YOU HAVE TO NEGATE OR INSTEAD OR REGARDLESS". ... what?
I'm not the one trying to make Golgotha say things it doesn't. It doesn't say instead, it doesn't say regardless, therefore arguments based on cards that DO say those things does not relate and cannot be used to justify your take on Golgotha. I'm not changing the fundamentals of my arguments, I'm merely updating them to rule out your unrelated arguments as you come up with them.
- Your post immediately before this one said that you REQUIRED A NEGATE in order to make a card not immune. This statement is completely incorrect, and now you're trying to change it into something different.
Unless the card says regardless, which Golgotha does not, the only way to change an immune is with a negate/interrupt. What about that is incorrect?
- Your complaint about cannot-be-ignored is that it is THE ONLY EFFECT that does what it does. This statement is completely incorrect, and you're trying to avoid that fact by lumping in cards that DO NOT cancel the effect with other cards that DO cancel the effect.
Golgotha IS the only card that does so without using a pre-established method of getting around an effect (instead, regardless, etc.)
- Cannot be ignored does not cancel the effect. It goes around the effect without cancelling. If an ignore is active and ongoing, this card turns off the ignored status when certain conditions for the intended target are met.
But why? Cannot be ignored, in the case of Golgotha and Wolves, does not interrupt or negate the ignore status, it does not instead or act regardless of the ignore status, so what gives it the ability to override the ignore status? Yes, negate gets rid of an ability/status, interrupt temporarily pauses an ability/status, regardless gets around the status without getting rid of the status, instead doesn't change that the ability happened it merely changes what the ability does. Why does cannot be ignored get to not only go around the status but change what the ability does while also not needing an interrupt/negate to do it? Why is it so special?
-
Can not be ignored is a regardless if you have to think of it that way. Regardless of ignore abilities, this evil character may enter/affect battle.
-
Cannot be Ignored gets around Ignore because that's what it was defined to do, no other reason.
-
You honestly don't think one card with a condition and one card without a condition are different? If there was a way to convert an EC's brigade, that would not make NNfS dynamic because it would still be sitting there ignoring the brigade I chose. Nothing about NNfS can change, therefore I don't see how it could possibly fit the definition of dynamic. It doesn't take an English degree to see that, so I truthfully don't know how you can say this is just me seeing incorrectly.
FTR, I did not say that you saw it incorrectly, I said that you see a difference that I do not. As to the color change, even though NNfS is still there ignoring the first chosen brigade, it is no longer ignoring the character it was played against. To me, that is dynamic, although I admit that I do not have an English degree. ;)
What I am choosing to do is attempt to show you that your examples, while correct in and of themselves, do not apply to the issue at hand since they, not in my opinion but in fact, are actually different. If you're so sure that NNfS is dynamic, show me the X in the special ability with a corresponding "X=_____" in the identifier line, show me "as long as", "while", "if used by", or any other words that could mean something about the ability could change at anytime after activation. If you can't, then maybe I'm not the one choosing not to listen.
My comment was in reference to your statement about ongoing abilities and interrupts, which is why I quoted you first. It was not in regard to whether or not NNfS is dynamic. Your quoted statement was already addressed in my post, which is what made your repetition of your stance on that point redundant. So I am awaiting clarification on your opinion about the lack of need for an interrupt in my examples. Feel free to concede the point. ;D
-
Your examples show exceptions to that rule, of which Golgotha is not since it is not an instead nor a regardless. My statements are not in disagreement.
Why do you consider "regardless of immunity" an exception but not "cannot be ignored"?
You're saying that a condition within a card itself being changed because the condition being checked changes is the same as my card's unchanging ability being changed by an outside card (that is not an instead). Clearly they are not. And if they are not the same, then you cannot use precedent of the former to try and justify the latter.
Your card's ability is not being changed. So that comparison doesn't even make sense. And the relationship between the former and the latter is that a negate is not required, which was your argument from the outset.
Golgotha does not say "regardless" therefore a ruling about cards that say "regardless", much like my point above, cannot be used as precedent to prove your point about Golgotha.
Cards that say "regardless" prove my point that you can get around an ability without negating it, which directly disproves your argument that NO OTHER EFFECT does this. They don't have to be worded the same and I am not establishing "precedent". I am merely comparing like with like.
I'm not the one trying to make Golgotha say things it doesn't.
Neither am I. I'm just disproving your point that NO OTHER EFFECT does what Golgotha does.
Unless the card says regardless, which Golgotha does not, the only way to change an immune is with a negate/interrupt. What about that is incorrect?
Well, for starters, you are not "changing an immune". You are only stating that certain effects go around it. So there's no "unless" here. You either cancel the effect or you go around the effect. Regardless of immunity goes around the effect. Cannot be ignored goes around the effect.
Golgotha IS the only card that does so without using a pre-established method of getting around an effect (instead, regardless, etc.)
Not true. We have cards going back almost a decade that use "cannot be ignored" language. The only thing that is not "pre-established" is a specific definition to this phrase that clearly explains what it does. "Pre-established" is completely meaningless in explaining how this works; it only pretends like this kind of effect has never existed before, when clearly it has.
it does not instead or act regardless of the ignore status
Yes it does. It behaves exactly the same way as those other two phrases behave. That's why your argument that this card is WAY MORE POWERFUL makes no sense. Your argument here is not that one kind of effect is not more powerful than the other; you are only arguing that it uses a different keyword than those two effects (but leaving out, I notice, the other effect "cannot be negated" which uses the SAME phrasing).
Why does cannot be ignored get to not only go around the status but change what the ability does while also not needing an interrupt/negate to do it? Why is it so special?
Explain what "cannot be ignored" does that "regardless of immunity" does not do, that is not a). "going around the status" and b). "not needing an interrupt", that makes the former WAY OVERPOWERED and the latter just some phrase or another not worth mentioning. You ask why it's so special, but you need to establish exactly WHAT you think is so special about it, other than the specific words used.
-
Cannot be Ignored gets around Ignore because that's what it was defined to do, no other reason.
That's not a reason, though. I know perfectly well (since Schaef has done practically nothing but repeat it over and over) what the definition of "cannot be ignored" is and how it's currently ruled to work. I'm asking WHY it was defined and ruled that way since there's questionable precedent at best for that definition, it makes Golgotha even worse than TGT ever was (if for nothing else than the "any time during battle" part), and it effectively removes ignore (specifically in-battle ignore) as an ability by virtue of not requiring any of the standard partnered abilities ("interrupt and", "negate and", "regardless of", "instead", etc.) in order to reverse the card's ability.
In-battle ignore was nowhere near overpowered (there's maybe half a dozen cards that even do it), so I'm just wondering WHY the Elders (if this is even their final decision) decided to word/define/rule it this way rather than just in a way that stops pre-block ignore (which was most definitely overpowered).
Hopefully this clears things up.
-
Summary of the last 2 pages: YMT changed his opinion, nothing else has changed.
-
Summary of the last 2 pages: YMT changed his opinion, nothing else has changed.
YAY MEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!! WOO-HOOOOOO!!!!!!! WOO........
Wait, was that a good thing or a bad thing?
-
Summary of the last 2 pages: YMT changed his opinion, nothing else has changed.
YAY MEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!! WOO-HOOOOOO!!!!!!! WOO........
Wait, was that a good thing or a bad thing?
I think that's the most enthusiasm I've ever seen from you.
It's a neutral thing, I was trying to spur a change in the way this is being discussed since this thread doesn't appear to be going anywhere.
-
Wait, was that a good thing or a bad thing?
Neither side is "evil" so it's certainly not a bad thing. ;)
I was trying to spur a change in the way this is being discussed since this thread doesn't appear to be going anywhere.
I'm hoping my latest post does that, as it's more to the point what I'm specifically looking for and less running in circles between me and Schaef, lol. :P
-
I think that's the most enthusiasm I've ever seen from you.
You obviously never took my Calculus class then. ;)
YAY CALCULUS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! WOO-HOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!
-
I think that's the most enthusiasm I've ever seen from you.
You obviously never took my Calculus class then. ;)
YAY CALCULUS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! WOO-HOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!
If that's the case, I think I would have much preferred your Calculus class to the one I had in high school. ;)
-
YAY CALCULUS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! WOO-HOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!
I agree with this statement, Calculus is pure awesome.
-
I'm asking WHY it was defined and ruled that way since there's questionable precedent at best for that definition
After having so many different examples dropped on you that it's actually a shorter list to show ongoing abilities that you CAN'T get around (and practically none if you leave off the ones that only alter numbers), there hasn't really been anything you're presented as being non-precedent that didn't have something that specifically proved otherwise, all the way down to when the only distinction you made was in the specific wording (which doesn't make sense: it's not like "regardless of ignoring" would make it less powerful).
and it effectively removes ignore (specifically in-battle ignore) as an ability by virtue of not requiring any of the standard partnered abilities ("interrupt and", "negate and", "regardless of", "instead", etc.) in order to reverse the card's ability.
Regardless does not reverse a card's ability. It does the same thing as this; alter the effect applied to your card without negating. The only way your logic makes sense is if regardless effectively removes immune as an ability.
Instead does not reverse a card's ability. It does the same thing as this; alter the effect applied to your card without negating. If we applied your logic to this phrase, the argument would be that EVERY effect is now useless because any applied effect can be instead-ed.
You have not presented evidence that the first effect is more powerful - or even significantly different - than either of these two. You just say they don't count because we had those words before (we had "cannot be ignored" before also. And instead was not clearly defined until about two years ago).
Your claim also completely disregards the fact that a "cannot be ignored" ability can still be negated - the most common way to cancel an effect in the game - or that, while it would take some kind of a combo to pull it off, it's theoretically possible for a character to be protected from or immune to the cannot-be-ignored effect. It's not like a cannot-be-ignored card, or a card that gives that effect, is somehow untouchable.
-
Wow Schaef! How did you type that much so fast? It would've taken me hours to get that much out. :o
I wish you had been my college roommate. I'll dictate my papers.... you type! ;D
-
And it would have taken me hours to do calculus.
-
Regardless does not reverse a card's ability. It does the same thing as this; alter the effect applied to your card without negating. The only way your logic makes sense is if regardless effectively removes immune as an ability.
And there are only currently 2 "regardless" cards (that I know of) in the game that, I believe, both require a specific offense-type/theme to use and, while possibly recurrable, are not able to repeatedly be used to the extent that Golgotha can. If you read what I said, you'll notice I did specifically point out that what I think is overpowered is the fact that Golgotha can be used for relatively no cost any time during any battle.
You have not presented evidence that the first effect is more powerful - or even significantly different - than either of these two. You just say they don't count because we had those words before (we had "cannot be ignored" before also. And instead was not clearly defined until about two years ago).
Again, had you read what I said, you'd have seen that what I called overpowered was the unlimited usage of Golgotha. This wouldn't even be an issue if Golgotha didn't have "any time during battle".
Your claim also completely disregards the fact that a "cannot be ignored" ability can still be negated - the most common way to cancel an effect in the game - or that, while it would take some kind of a combo to pull it off, it's theoretically possible for a character to be protected from or immune to the cannot-be-ignored effect. It's not like a cannot-be-ignored card, or a card that gives that effect, is somehow untouchable.
Right, because there are so many cards with "negate site abilities" in the game right now that are accessible by the same theme that would be using NNfS effectively; I count 1. Also, Golgotha IS untouchable if CP is also out.
-
If you read what I said, you'll notice I did specifically point out that what I think is overpowered is the fact that Golgotha can be used for relatively no cost any time during any battle.
You repeatedly stated that what you thought was overpowered was:
- the ability was the only effect in the entire game that could get around something without negating it (which you then revised to include all the other cards that can get around something without negating it)
- the ability was the only effect in the entire game that could apply its effect retroactively (and apparently all the other effects that can be applied retroactively don't count).
So don't spend two pages arguing with me about these specific things to the point of exhaustion and then say, "well, the real problem here is that you're just too ignorant to read that one thing I mentioned way back then and disregard everything I've been telling you for the last 20 posts".
Again, had you read what I said, you'd have seen that what I called overpowered was the unlimited usage of Golgotha... Right, because there are so many cards with "negate site abilities" in the game right now
Those two issues have nothing to do with the effect itself or any of the claims you were arguing against me. And if a cannot-be-ignore-ing Site that doesn't even work on 2/3 of the ECs in the game is truly an overpowered ability, then I will happily play your unstoppable Golgotha defense against my musician's offense and we'll see how many times you use Golgotha against me.
-
I was arguing those points because, despite what the likes of you and Polarius would say, there is reasonable doubt to suggest that there is a logical way of ruling "cannot be ignored" other than the current, active ruling, and that gives me cause to ask for the reasoning behind the ruling. It wasn't 2 pages of waste, I just finally decided to say why I was arguing that way so as to get some kind of resolution for this rather than the constant circles you and I were going in.
Balance of a card DOES relate to counters, so the number of site negators accessible by NT females actually DOES matter in determining overpoweredness of Golgotha in relation to NNfS.
Other cards can apply statuses (or reversal of statuses) retroactively (without an interrupt/negate)? I don't know of any.
-
Balance of a card DOES relate to counters, so the number of site negators accessible by NT females actually DOES matter in determining overpoweredness of Golgotha in relation to NNfS.
So determining the balance of a card means determining whether it is overpowered in relation to one card out of over 3000, when used in one specific theme? Cause you just got finished saying the EFFECT AS DEFINED (not just one card and not based on the type and recursive function of that one card) took the ignore ability out of the game completely.
Other cards can apply statuses (or reversal of statuses) retroactively (without an interrupt/negate)? I don't know of any.
We just spent a day talking about them and you changed your argument to add them to negate. So yes you do know of any.
-
I'm not going to argue with you anymore. I got the answer I was looking for from an Elder so I see no reason to continue this.
-
I tried my best. It's not my fault that you continually shifted your argument and disregarded every attempt I made to clarify the issue.
-
Considering the answer I got was entirely different than any of the arguments you made for your point of view, and the Elder actually said my point of view was entirely valid (something you either weren't willing or weren't able to do), your "best" doesn't seem to be very good.
-
It's hard to validate a point of view when it changes every time I respond.
And for all your criticisms about my attempts to make sense of what you were saying, the answer you got doesn't seem to be something you wanted to share with any of the other people in this thread whose understanding might be made better if they knew what you knew.
So if my best isn't very good but everyone here knows exactly how I am explaining this function, but nobody else knows the explanation you accepted, what are we supposed to take away from that?
-
It's hard to validate a point of view when it changes every time I respond.
The fundamental never changed. All my arguing was to prove that your point of view was not the only reasonable one. You seemed unwilling to acknowledge even that much.
And for all your criticisms about my attempts to make sense of what you were saying, the answer you got doesn't seem to be something you wanted to share with any of the other people in this thread whose understanding might be made better if they knew what you knew.
Everyone else seemed to accept the ruling as portrayed by you and YMT, so if I'm the only one that dissented why would anyone else need the answer? I'm perfectly willing to post it if anyone is still left uncertain as to why the ruling is the way it is.
So if my best isn't very good but everyone here knows exactly how I am explaining this function, but nobody else knows the explanation you accepted, what are we supposed to take away from that?
You were explaining the how of the function, yes, but I already knew how it functioned. I only ever wanted the why. I don't know or care what you take away from this, that's really only your business.
-
The fundamental never changed. All my arguing was to prove that your point of view was not the only reasonable one. You seemed unwilling to acknowledge even that much.
My "point of view" is what the rules are. My job is to explain the way things are, not to hold a jam session about all the way that things might be.
You claimed that the rule was bad for reasons which did not make sense given the examples I provided in response. Then you went and said you thought the rule was bad for a reason that had absolutely nothing to do with what you were arguing about for the last day. If those points were not your problem with the rule, you were only wasting your own time in pursuing something that wasn't going to help your understanding anyway. I responded to what you gave me.
Everyone else seemed to accept the ruling as portrayed by you and YMT, so if I'm the only one that dissented why would anyone else need the answer? I'm perfectly willing to post it if anyone is still left uncertain as to why the ruling is the way it is.
This sentence leaves me confused as to whether you think the world is better or not if people are aware of multiple points of view. Since I am approaching this thread from the angle that it needs to educate people to the correct answer in the future, let me put it to you in a way that might make my meaning more plain: if someone else comes along next month and has difficulty understanding this definition, how would you rather have it explained to them, the way I said it or the way your mystery benefactor said it?
You were explaining the how of the function, yes, but I already knew how it functioned. I only ever wanted the why. I don't know or care what you every other person who might read this thread in an attempt to understand cannot-be-ignored takes away from this, that's really only your business significant to people who want to make sure that everyone knows and understands the rules properly so everyone can just play and have a good time.
Fixed it for you. Protip for next time: if you want the why, don't waste your own time arguing about the how.
-
I feel like this should be Dropped / Locked / Go to Pms, 4 pages is enough and it's getting too personal.
-
For future reference, so Schaef can stop complaining that I'm hiding things, here's the answer I got as to why the ruling is this way: "This was discussed awhile ago and it seemed that most of the elders agreed with Schaef. I was originally on your side, but I think that although it makes in-battle ignore a lot less powerful, it's more intuitive to rule pre-block ignore the same way as in-battle ignore. One of the reasons is this: You attack with Susanna, I block with a Sadducee. You play NNfS. I am now ignored, so I put a black enhancement on Golgotha. Assuming you are correct, any characters that are in battle are still ignored, but anyone who isn't in battle cannot be ignored (given how you would rule TGT, right?). So I could play Babel and bring in any number of black NT EC's, all of which would not be ignored. It just seems that ruling it as you have been arguing could lead to too many confusing possibilities, and it would just be better to have cannot be ignored apply universally to ignore abilities. So essentially, having "cannot be ignored" in the game adds a condition to the ignore ability that says "ignore a character, unless that character cannot be ignored.""
Can this be locked now?
-
So essentially, having "cannot be ignored" in the game adds a condition to the ignore ability that says "ignore a character, unless that character cannot be ignored.""
Can this be locked now?
A. That was explained on page one
But CBIg doesn't ignore game rules. Think about it this way. Each special ability (capture something, discard something, negate something, ignore something, etc) has an unwritten clause that says "...except targets that cannot be captured/discarded/negated/ignored)".
B. I hope so.
-
All I said was that I did the best I could with what I was given.
Neither am I "complaining" about anything, just wondering whether multiple points of view are supposed to be discussed openly or kept to ourselves, so I can be clear for the next time someone asks me a question.
And a point of clarification regarding this quoted response, the reason "most of the elders agree with Schaef" is because Schaef is reiterating the solution on which most of the elders agreed. I don't want to leave the impression that I held sway over the fine points of this ruling since, for reasons not related to the objections raised in this thread, I do not recall offering an opinion on the parameters of the ability.
:edit: Locked by request.