anti-concede cards and negates

[breadmaster]

meta 70, for ease

Specials which prevent an opponent from conceding are played defensively in response to the player conceding. After the Special has been played, it is that players turn (just as it is after any other defensive actions). In other words, the sequence of events is (1) Player X concedes, (2) Player Y plays a Special preventing him from conceding, (3) Player Y then takes their normal turn (4) play proceeds as normal, except that Player X cannot concede as long as the Special preventing it is in play.

this certainly suggests there's no chance to negate

[bamf!]

hmm, should of read the whole thread before jumping in. I thought you were saying BL specials cannot be negated, but what was questioned was the response when this is played.

Anyway, I retract my conclusion, meta >> anything when there isn't a judge around, that is how I play.

I always believe that meta should only be pulled out when both players disagree on how the special should be played. If both players agree (even if wrong according to the meta), then the action is fair in both player's eyes. However, at no point should random meta be used to reach a conclusion if it doesn't apply to the special in question.

breadmaster: thanks for posting that, I of all people should know of the resources available.

bamf!

[breadmaster]

back to my question about sabretooth's card then.

suppose i play the special and attack with a power card.  do you think this could be defended with a negate (as the special is played 'with' the power card), or not defended with a negate (as the power card follows up the special)

[BigBadHarve]

I disagree.  See meta rule #70.

Sorry, I am done with this thread.  I do not think this will ever actually happpen.

I too am more or less done. No point in arguing further.

I have to concede that without a specific reference otherwise - the rules presented would indicate that Taunt cannot be defended when played. As I said, it's how I was told it was played and therefore have always considered that to be the definitive rule.

Regardless, on the other hand I agree with you guys 100% about how it should be played.

back to my question about sabretooth's card then.

suppose i play the special and attack with a power card.  do you think this could be defended with a negate (as the special is played 'with' the power card), or not defended with a negate (as the power card follows up the special)

In this front I'd definitely say yes, you can negate. And the rules support that -

1st, Sabretooth's card says you may defend.

2nd, You'd be playing the special and the powercard together. It's not a string attack, they're being played simultaneously. In all cases of power cards being played with specials, if you negate the special you negate the power card.

The exception there is if Blood Hunt is already in play and you're waiting for the opponent to concede (assuming the rules on the card allow for that, but I don't see why it wouldn't.) - then no you couldn't negate it. In this case the power card is being played on its own, so the negate wouldn't apply.

That's my two cents.

-BBH

[rucker73]

Sorry to jump in on this so late.

I would have to side with Bread and others...

my counter argument against BBH's point of negating anything that crosses the line into an attack on him would be this question...   if I attacked you and you blocked with Shang Chi's "Swift Counter Attack" would I then be able to negate it?

anyways, great debate everyone.

[Demacus]

Not to dredge up an old topic that seems to be concise, but I was just recently reading this thread, and I remember having this situation explained differently, which made more sense to me at the time.

When player "A" concedes, that's his turn.  There is no defense to a concession.
Then, before both players discard their hands, player "B" has a chance to play cards that could prevent the concession or attack after the concession, but this would be considered player "B's" turn, not a defense to player "A" conceeding.
After player "B" plays a card or passes due to having no legal plays, both players then discard their hands.

Under this understanding of how concession works, then the Taunt would be negateable, as it is not being played defensively, but offensively on player "B's" turn after player "A" had declared his concession.

Keep in mind, this is NOT an official ruling, nor am I arguing that it SHOULD be, this is just how it the situation was explained to my friends and myself when we ran into this similar issue WAY WAY back in the late 90's.

[gameplan.exe]

Dem- that's exactly how I always took it, too. just like passing occurs as your turn, so would conceding. I agree that Taunt (and the attack-after-concede Specials) should be negate-able.

again, this seems unlikely to come up. IF it came up, and IF it was a spot game, I would definitely be in favor of it goin this way. but, since it seems that the Meta Rule 70 appears to clarify that Taunt (and others) are, in fact, played defensively 

[BasiliskFang]

maybe think of these cards as "concede negating"?

[TheGeneral]

Dem - where is that written that when one concedes thats it and player B is allowed to make an attack before cards are discarded?

Never heard of this rule

[AO user]

So immediately after venture, the person who has the initiative says i concede. Can taunt be played then or is that "before play begins"?

[BasiliskFang]

So immediately after venture, the person who has the initiative says i concede. Can taunt be played then or is that "before play begins"?

if it is before battle then i think no, it is not possible. this is the only time before play begins.

the way i think of it is like the bell hasn't rung yet in boxing. a concede is your trainer throwing in the towel, a taunt is the negation/rejection of the towel.