Cactus Game Design Message Boards

Does Captain of the Host negate Promised Land's limit of two uses?

Nope. It's play as states: "Negate all special abilities on characters and enhancements (except banding, weapons, and Captain's special abilities)."

If so, when did Lost soul sites have their abilities negated by cards? Are they not technically identifiers?

Since [card=2843]Isaiah's Call[/card] at least

Well then without that play as, captain says ALL abilities except banding. I'd therefore argue that would include forts, sites, ls, arts, etc. I think the play as is pretty important in this case.

Well then without that play as, captain says ALL abilities except banding. I'd therefore argue that would include forts, sites, ls, arts, etc. I think the play as is pretty important in this case.

I may be wrong about this because I've never seen this explicitly stated, but I recall reading something recently that made me think that "negate all abilities" abilities like Captain's defaulted to the battle. This is pure conjecture, but it would clear that particular issue up.

Brad, I'm relatively sure that Captain negates the ability on Promised Land and Ends of the Earth.

I can't find it now, but Randall had some hero he was excited about rescuing with while Ends of the Earth was in battle because he'd negate it's ability, but I can't remember who it was.

Couldn't be that, since Call gives access anyway.

Quote from: TechnoEthicist on April 02, 2012, 02:26:40 AM

Does Captain of the Host negate Promised Land's limit of two uses?

Nope. It's play as states: "Negate all special abilities on characters and enhancements (except banding, weapons, and Captain's special abilities)."

Disregard all Play As disguised as errata.

It is true that Captains negate all abilities defaults to in battle, but when the site is placed in battle it is negated.  Under the current rule structure there is no reason that it should not work.  Whether it is desirable for it to work is whole other argument.  I would argue that it really isn't that big of a deal since the number of FBTN the number hero's is relatively fixed. 

I never noticed that was listed as a play-as. He and any other FbtN characters need to get errata'd ASAP.

Why?  Is it really that big of a deal? Or are you concerned with some thing other than access sites, ala Nazareth, etc.?

I've actually seen this strategy used before to give infinite uses.

The only characters I can think of that would benefit from this is Centurion @ Cap & AwaSN.

Last weekend was the first time I had ever heard of that....I always ruled that Captain's negate was limited to Characters and Enhancements...that's it...and that sites were not negated unless specifically stated (see the new cards)....

So why is this even a Q? The way the FBtN characters work is the way they have always been played. There should not be any confusion. Even if you were to take Captain's ability and translate it literally to negate sites, LSs, etc., he would just negate himself, problem solved.

As far as I can understand, Cap's effect only affects Characters/Enhancements. Remember, it states is Play as/Errata.
My question is can Cap negate Enhancements in territory? (i.e. Territory Class Cards)

As far as I can understand, Cap's effect only affects Characters/Enhancements. Remember, it states is Play as/Errata.
My question is can Cap negate Enhancements in territory? (i.e. Territory Class Cards)

As I responded to your other thread, some play-as are incorrect.  While they were intended to add readability to old wording, some added wording that wasn't already there.  If the play-as changes the essence of the ability and there is no corresponding errata (there isn't, I checked), then we cannot take the play-as as 'truth'.

As far as I could tell, it doesn't limit itself to Battle... As far as I can tell...

And you have hit on my concern as well Still looking for proof.  If anyone finds the ruling on this, it'd be appreciated!

Quote from: megamanlan on April 02, 2012, 06:08:41 AM

As far as I could tell, it doesn't limit itself to Battle... As far as I can tell...

If anyone finds the ruling on this, it'd be appreciated!

It has definitely been previously ruled that CotH does not negate artifacts in the artifact pile. I can't find the thread with that ruling, possibly due to an old purge or crash, as it was some time ago. In that pre-elder era, someone ruled that BTN cards that don't specify targets are restricted to negating "characters and enhancements". I'm almost sure Rob was in on that thread, but no idea why such a ruling would just become a play-as.