TSA vs. 2k w/ TSA

[Alex_Olijar]

Sorry for no "real" abilities here.

If I make a RA or BC with The Strong Angel (WC), ability= Fight by the numbers, except Warrior Class, with a Two-Thousand Horses, ability=Interrupt the battle, draw two cards,play the next enhancement, can I:

1. Play a non-weapon class without it being negated?
2. If so, does TSA negate it when his abliity becomes uninterrupted?

[Rubber band warrior]

yes, and yes.

[Alex_Olijar]

I figured. Man. Unfortunate.

[sk]

Well, I agree on #1, but I'm not quite sure what happens for #2.

Negate = Interrupt and Prevent (I realize you know this, just working it out)
The interrupt part has finished its use at this point (at least for now)
Therefore, it's just "just" preventing.
Thus, TSA is preventing all non-WC.

2K Horses = interrupt & play
Interrupts TSA's prevent
Play non-WC card, not being prevented because TSA's ability is interrupted (1 = YES)
2K Horses' interrupt ends

TSA's prevent reactivates
Does interrupt reactivate?
Prevent only affects yet-to-be-played enhancements only, correct?

[STAMP]

   with sk

[SirNobody]

Hey,

I didn't exactly follow sk's logic, but this would work the same way as Strong Angel blocked by The Rabshakeh with Two Thousand Horses.  The enhancement after Two Thousand Horses would take effect with The Strong Angel interrupted, but unless that card removes The Strong Angel from battle, The Strong Angel would negate it as soon as The Strong Angel reactivates.

Tschow,

Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly

[Gabe]

TSA's prevent reactivates
Does interrupt reactivate?
Prevent only affects yet-to-be-played enhancements only, correct?

w/ Tim.

By breaking it down it seems you've confused yourself.  TSA's entire SA (not just the prevent part) is interrupted (stopped) by the enhancement.  Once the interrupt completes, his entire SA (negate all) reinstates, which includes interrupting all abilities.

The enhancement you play is negated unless it somehow stops TSA's sa from reinstating.

[STAMP]

TSA's prevent reactivates
Does interrupt reactivate?
Prevent only affects yet-to-be-played enhancements only, correct?

w/ Tim.

By breaking it down it seems you've confused yourself.  TSA's entire SA (not just the prevent part) is interrupted (stopped) by the enhancement.  Once the interrupt completes, his entire SA (negate all) reinstates, which includes interrupting all abilities.

The enhancement you play is negated unless it somehow stops TSA's sa from reinstating.

Interrupting the battle only interrupts the ongoing ability of TSA's SA.

[sk]

I wrote it out to question whether TSA's ability reactivates, and continues af not not interrupted (thus no longer interrupting), or if it completely reboots and both interrupts and prevents.  What all has been interrupted, and how does it return?

[Gabe]

Interrupting the battle only interrupts the ongoing ability of TSA's SA.

Correct.  Then when the interrupt from 2kHorses ends, TSA's negate all (but warriors/weapons) kicks back in, negating (interrupting and preventing) whatever was played with the 2kHorses.

[STAMP]

Interrupting the battle only interrupts the ongoing ability of TSA's SA.

Correct.  Then when the interrupt from 2kHorses ends, TSA's negate all (but warriors/weapons) kicks back in, negating (interrupting and preventing) whatever was played with the 2kHorses.

'Interrupt' is not an ongoing ability.  Only the 'Prevent' part of TSA's SA is ongoing.

[Gabe]

'Interrupt' is not an ongoing ability.  Only the 'Prevent' part of TSA's SA is ongoing.

There aren't two separate abilities.  It's one ability.  Negate all.

Check the REG, negate all cards are listed under "Ongoing abilities".

The Strong Angel
Type: Hero Char. • Brigade: Silver • Ability: 10 / 8 • Class: Warrior • Special Ability: All special abilities on non-warrior class characters and non-weapon class enhancements are negated.

[STAMP]

'Interrupt' is not an ongoing ability.  Only the 'Prevent' part of TSA's SA is ongoing.

There aren't two separate abilities.  It's one ability.  Negate all.

Check the REG, negate all cards are listed under "Ongoing abilities".

The Strong Angel
Type: Hero Char. • Brigade: Silver • Ability: 10 / 8 • Class: Warrior • Special Ability: All special abilities on non-warrior class characters and non-weapon class enhancements are negated.

Negate is interrupt+prevent.  It's listed under ongoing because the prevent part is ongoing.  Look under instant abilities to find interrupt.  The wording for the warriors version is:

The Strong Angel
Type: Hero Char. • Brigade: Silver • Ability: 10 / 8 • Class: None • Special Ability: All special abilities on character cards and enhancement cards except this one are interrupted and prevented. Battle is determined by the numbers. • Identifiers: NT Male Angel • Verse: Revelation 5:2


Even though the wording is different, they do the same thing: interrupt all + prevent all.

[DaClock]

I agree with Stamp.

[YourMathTeacher]

"Negate All" is in the Ongoing Abilities section and says this:

These cards negate all special abilities of all cards currently in effect, except those that cannot be negated.  It also prevents all special abilities on all cards that are played during the rest of the Battle Phase.  The only exceptions are abilities (*/*), definitions of of a “*” in an icon box (see Variable Value (x/x)), or cards that cannot be negated (see Cannot be Negated).

The "Clarifications" section says the "Negate All" is the same as "Play by the Numbers."

[DaClock]

The problem here is that Interrupt, Prevent, and Negate has never been as neatly defined as they should be. The Angel Wars insert does a pretty good job of explaining how they work, but in circumstances like this it would be nice to have a stronger definition of "Negate" than we currently do.

[YourMathTeacher]

I guess the statement "These cards negate all special abilities of all cards currently in effect" needs to be made clear. Are enhancements that have already been played (with instant abilities) still "in effect?" The fact that you can Interrupt them would lead me to believe that they are.

[DaClock]

That depends on whether they are ongoing or instant abilities I believe.

[The Schaef]

Prevent stops forward.  Interrupt stops backward (typically only for a limited time).  Negate stops in both directions.  It's been defined that way for at least three years, and I would say all the way back to Angel Wars.

[DaClock]

Right, so if we're saying negate stops both ways then it is like an ongoing version of interrupt which is slightly different than interrupt+prevent. It is like "perpetual interrupt" + prevent.

[YourMathTeacher]

It is like "perpetual interrupt" ...

This sounds like my third period class... 

[MichaelHue]

So, if a negate all ability is interrupted, when it reactivates, does it interrupt again, or simply continue to prevent, like it would have done if it wasn't interrupted? 

What if TSA (Ki) is blocked by a WC EC with 2KH, and the blocking player plays Angel Departed (Return a silver brigade hero in battle to owner's territory.  Cannot be prevented)?  Is Angel Departed interrupted, because 2KH's interrupt caused TSA's interrupt to reactivate?  In that case, the best move would be to NOT use 2KH's interrupt function, and only the draw two/play next, which would cause Angel Departed to not be interrupted.  To me, this seems like a very awkward situation. 

If we do rule Negate All to be treated as a "perpetual interrupt", then the "cannot be prevented" cards that were intended to counter FBTN characters and enhancements will be useless.

Is "Negate All" ongoing, or is the "prevent all" part of the ability what is ongoing?

**edit** realized my hypothetical situation didn't work, because TSA can't interrupt when it's not in battle.  Let's say we have a Gathered Michael banded to TSA (Ki), they are blocked by a Pale Green WC EC with 2KH, and the blocker plays Angel Departed, targeting Michael.  Does TSA "reactivate," interrupting Angel Departed, or is the prevent the only thing that reactivates? **edit**

So basically:
Option 1: Negate All interrupts and prevents continually, rendering all cannot be prevented cards useless.
Option 2: Negate all interrupts when it activates upon entering battle, and then prevents from that point onward.  When reactivating after being interrupted, only the prevent reactivates, and it continues as if it had not be interrupted.
Option 3: Negate all interrupts when it activates upon entering battle and after every time it is interrupted, even though interrupt is not an ongoing ability.

Option 1 doesn't really work with the cards that are available now.  Option 3 doesn't make sense with the definitions that negate = interrupt + prevent, interrupt is instant, and prevent is ongoing.  It could work if it was decided that negate all is treated slightly differently than just interrupt + prevent, or if it was ruled that all cards that were interrupted reactivate as if they were just played. 
Option 2 seems the most logical to me, and requires no new rulings or errata.

/end wall of text

[DaClock]

The way this was explained to me was that originally we said that Interrupt + Prevent = Negate. There was no problem with that until we flipped the equation around to say Negate = Interrupt + Prevent.

I'm not really sure which of your options are correct Michael, since Option 2 would allow an enhancement that can be negated played under the "Interrupt Umbrella" of 2k Horses to be safe from TSA when he reactivates.

[MichaelHue]

The way this was explained to me was that originally we said that Interrupt + Prevent = Negate. There was no problem with that until we flipped the equation around to say Negate = Interrupt + Prevent.

I'm not really sure which of your options are correct Michael, since Option 2 would allow an enhancement that can be negated played under the "Interrupt Umbrella" of 2k Horses to be safe from TSA when he reactivates.

True, I hadn't thought of that...now I don't know what I think...I guess the question is whether you can interrupt an interrupt that already happened, or if Negate All is not as simply defined as "Interrupt and Prevent".

[TimMierz]

Negate is not simply "interrupt and prevent". To interrupt and prevent causes the same result as to negate, but the converse does not hold.