BlindProphet, you can't read either, because you said "nobody said it'd only stop No Memories" when I was talking specifically about LOST Memories, one of the few abilities that negates an ABILITY rather than its effects. Explain that one! Does Lost Memories confer a "more powerful" negation since it negates the ability? WHAT'S WITH THIS WORDING MUMBO-JUMBO?!

Or you could let us do our jobs and make the calls because it's not your job to do it, doubly so when you're wrong?

2.13 Effects
When playing/activating a card or an ability, the effect is everything after the colon.

notice that EVERYTHING after the colon is a SINGLE EFFECT

::sigh:: Man i almost regret asking this question now...Well from what i read Tag as ruled that it works. my simple way of seeing it is that stand off has a built in way to canel its self. Snipe say no canceling E's. so even if the cancel is part of the E Snipe dont let ya do it. Wouldnt Snipe just ignore the second part? It kind of reminds me of Sophtia and Armored Defence. Oh drop 5 cards, this attack hits, Draw 5. oh ya cant cause of Armored D. the Drawing was the second part of the E with her and that part just got ignored so is this not the same thing in essance?

dragoku said:

Don't be stupid. MANY cards have multiple effects after the colon. They are not a single effect.

Furthermore, this is blatently wrong, because the trigger is not the effect, but it is also after the colon.

*sigh*

Tagrineth said:

Replace No Memories with Lost Memories and my point still stands there Tag. Its not a more powerful version of negation, as I've stated I think 3 or 4 times now in this thread. Its the same thing... Let me once again quote myself since you didn't read past "No Memories"

"And to further explain because I'm sure you STILL don't get it let me spell it out for you. What does a ability consist of? One or more effects. What happens when you negate a ability? All of its effects are canceled/negated. What happens when you cancel/negate all of a ability's effects? The ability is negated/canceled."

This turned out to be only partialy true because a ability only consists of a single effect acording to the rules, hence my concession of the argument but the point is still valid. And secondly allow me to quote myself once again since you didn't read my further post:

I am conceding to Proto's argument above btw.

I did not agree with your argument Tag. You argued and attacked something that had no bearing on the argument. You never answered my questions that I asked in regards to your ruling. Hence why I argued against your ruling. If you were always right there would be no need to discuss rulings but you aren't. I'm not always right either, please notice above where I conceded the argument to Proto. All I want is things to be right. Sometimes that takes arguing and discussion to ensure the right ruling is made for the right reasons.

As to Aslum:

The rules simply do no support your assertations. Everything after the colon is considered to be a singular effect. This effect may affect multiple things, but is is still a singular effect per the rules. As per your comment about triggers you can look to 2.9.3 on responses and find the following text:

"The trigger for the response will be printed immediately after the colon and will be separated from the effect by a comma."

BlindProphet said:

No. If that was true, then if one part of an ability is canceled or prevented then the entire ability is canceled.

Here's the root of the problem:

Is an enhance a single effect or multiple effects bound loosly together?

If the former then the game has just got ALL kinds of stupid.

If the latter then the damage bonus and the cancellation clause are two seperate effects, and the second effect is a reference to canceling the first, not the entire enhance and therefore is not canceling the enhance and shouldn't be prevented by Heel Snipe.

aslum said:

According to the rules everything after the colon is the abilities effect. Singular. Not plural. It is all one effect.

BlindProphet said:

The "More powerful form of negation" line was facetious. Seems this inability to understand each other at all works both ways.

BlindProphet said:

We've said this many, many times, going back more than a year now.

THIS IS NOT A DISCUSSION BOARD. THIS AREA IS FOR QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS.

If you have a problem with a ruling THIS IS THE WRONG PLACE TO DO IT. This thread is evidence for that, since we even got a severely discouraged response from the OP stating that he regretted even asking for this ruling.

If you have a problem with a ruling, shoot an email to [email protected] - the name's a little different but as always, you aren't supposed to whine about rulings you don't like HERE, you're supposed to email them about it so we don't clutter Q&A with this crap.

Okay, folks, this has degenerated. Thread closed.

- Jeremy @ FFG