The Book of Morsbane

[Revdyer]

Ah, here, at least, is an early mention.

[Sherman Davies]

Originally Posted by Aldin

Xotli, it seems to me that it's one of those areas where the thing that seems obvious may not be the technically correct way to play things. Here's where it gets really tricky for me, I don't think of Parmenio's Disciplined Influence as an "active" power. It happened, it had its effect, it is now just so much wasted space on his card. Estivara's Cloud of Darkness on the other hand feels like an active power. The power is actively sustaining the cloud for the duration of the cloud.

Xotli, I see your point about the slippery slope of thinking about powers as "active" or "passive," (as does Aldin, judging by his post) but the above is exactly how I understood these powers to work. Aldin just said it better.

[dok]

FWIW, my intuition agrees with Aldin's on this. Previously placed Lycanthropy markers still work after negating a WL, previously placed Negation markers work after negating Morsbane, and disciplined influence (which really ought to have a marker) still applies if Parmenio is negated. Conversely, Estivara and Siege and Scarcarver all lose their powers as soon as negation hits.

Rule of thumb (by my understanding): if the effect persists after the figure dies, then it persists if the figure is negated. If the power depends on the figure being active and on the board, then negation turns the power off.

I'm interested to see what the rules team says on this one.

[Aldin]

Originally Posted by dok

Rule of thumb (by my understanding): if the effect persists after the figure dies, then it persists if the figure is negated. If the power depends on the figure being active and on the board, then negation turns the power off.

You'd need an exception for powers that specifically function off-board/after death, but I think that is an excellent test for determining what gets negated. Negation then becomes a sort of "death in miniature".

~Aldin, who was going to say it becomes "the little death" but fortunately vaguely remembered that had another meaning

[Ivellius]

Originally Posted by Xotli

Nope, it's not clear at all.

*snip*

Okay, seriously, what's unclear? If there's a negation marker on Estivara's card, her powers are negated. If Cloud of Darkness is negated, how can it protect her? The question should be whether the Parmenio consensus is correct; are permanent effects "negateable" or not? You're right to point out that it's not clearly defined on the card, but for non-permanent effects I can't see any way they still work.

Originally Posted by dok

FWIW, my intuition agrees with Aldin's on this. Previously placed Lycanthropy markers still work after negating a WL, previously placed Negation markers work after negating Morsbane, and disciplined influence (which really ought to have a marker) still applies if Parmenio is negated. Conversely, Estivara and Siege and Scarcarver all lose their powers as soon as negation hits.

Rule of thumb (by my understanding): if the effect persists after the figure dies, then it persists if the figure is negated. If the power depends on the figure being active and on the board, then negation turns the power off.

I'm interested to see what the rules team says on this one.

I think I agree with this--the reason being that Rod of Negation doesn't negate because it's the other cards affected by these various powers. Otherwise, it may be that the Disciplined Influence consensus was incorrect, which would be acceptable enough.

[kolakoski]

Originally Posted by Ivellius

Okay, seriously, what's unclear? If there's a negation marker on Estivara's card, her powers are negated. If Cloud of Darkness is negated, how can it protect her? The question should be whether the Parmenio consensus is correct; are permanent effects "negateable" or not? You're right to point out that it's not clearly defined on the card, but for non-permanent effects I can't see any way they still work.

Well met!

From where I sit, if the Cloud needs to be maintained, then you're correct. However, if it is a cast and forget sort of thing, then negating her powers only prevents future castings of the Cloud.

[Evisceraxe]

Originally Posted by kolakoski

Well met!

From where I sit, if the Cloud needs to be maintained, then you're correct. However, if it is a cast and forget sort of thing, then negating her powers only prevents future castings of the Cloud.

Exactly. The way I see the power is like a smoke grenade- you pull the pin and let it do it's work (only there is no grenade that the smoke comes from in Estivara's case). As such, the cloud would still be there even if she can't use it again in the future.

[Ivellius]

Except that the Rod of Negation negates it...

I don't see how her "method" of activation cancels Morsbane's power. Any such speculation on how she actually manages the Cloud of Darkness doesn't have anything to do with the question.

I mean, I'll admit that it was a good question that should have been asked--I don't know how much thought I'd given to exactly what Rod of Negation effects and when--but by the rules on Morsbane's card most of these aren't hard to adjudicate. I'll repeat my question: if her Cloud of Darkness is negated, how can it protect her? The method of how exactly she summons the cloud doesn't interfere with Morsbane's power.

[kolakoski]

Originally Posted by Ivellius

Except that the Rod of Negation negates it...

I don't see how her "method" of activation cancels Morsbane's power. Any such speculation on how she actually manages the Cloud of Darkness doesn't have anything to do with the question.

I mean, I'll admit that it was a good question that should have been asked--I don't know how much thought I'd given to exactly what Rod of Negation effects and when--but by the rules on Morsbane's card most of these aren't hard to adjudicate. I'll repeat my question: if her Cloud of Darkness is negated, how can it protect her? The method of how exactly she summons the cloud doesn't interfere with Morsbane's power.

Well met!

It is not the already-created Cloud that is negated; it is the power to create such a Cloud that is negated. I believe there is a general consensus in favor of this kind of distinction for all Negations.

[nate the dawg]

Yeah, it seems that, pending a ruling, the consensus is that Negation removes the power (removing the ability to activate/benefit form it in the future, but not negating an specific-duration effect that has already been put into play).

[dok]

Originally Posted by nate the dawg

Yeah, it seems that, pending a ruling, the consensus is that Negation removes the power (removing the ability to activate/benefit form it in the future, but not negating an specific-duration effect that has already been put into play).

I don't see that consensus at all. Just in the last page, Aldin, Ivellius, and myself have all interpreted it the other way - that negation means the cloud effect stops immediately.

[Revdyer]

Originally Posted by nate the dawg

Yeah, it seems that, pending a ruling, the consensus is that Negation removes the power (removing the ability to activate/benefit form it in the future, but not negating an specific-duration effect that has already been put into play).

I certainly hope so, otherwise, whenever Raelin is negated, all of the previous conflicts where she offered a boost to defense would have to be recalculated and the now un-dead, but not zombies, would have to be brought back to life.