I need to know if this works because if it does im so doing this.

Heel Snipe

Static

after you play this card as an attack,commit 1 card in play and enhances may not be canceled during this attacks enhance step.

Stand Off

E commit 2 foundations: Your attack gets plus 4 damage. Your opponent may commit 2 foundations to cancel this effect.

So i was wondering, if heel snipe is in play can i pump my attack with out the worry. also if this does work and they try to cancel would they just commit 2 foundations for no reason or they just cant commit for it at all?

Oops stupid typo I ment plus 4 damage. dont worry i fixed it now so people will know what i ment.

Actually, your opponent committing two foundations doesn't cancel the enhence, and in point of fact is part of the enhance's ability. They are canceling the effect, not enhance.

Aww that sucks.. well thanks anyway.

Although...

ALL cancellings are cancellings of effects. You can never cancel the "playing" of an enhance, because there is no way to cancel the paying of costs. Effects are the only parts of enhances that are ever cancelled.

I think Heel Snipe actually refers to the cancelling of an Enhance's effects. I'm inclined to say the combo works....

aslum said:

The only negation effect that actually negates the ability is Lost Memories.

Even going back to Yoga Mastery and POTE they say to "cancel the effects".

Edit: So yes, it works.

OMG this works?! wow im bummed i didnt find out until I got home after my tournament on saterday? I Every single game i played i had stand off and played heel snipe as a reversal. Since i was using adon i was giving it a speed boost based on my momentum so they wouldnt block it but if was would know heel snipe was a 9 instead of a 5 i would of won my games>< oh well now i know for next time and i wont break up the deck. Oh and just to make sure, do they commit the two foundations if they try to cancel and nothing happens or we play that they cant commit 2 in the first place?

You are committing the two foundations to cancel the +4. Not the entire enhance. If you cancel the entire enhance, then you no the committing 2 foundations no longer commits the enhance making it so you didn't cancel the entire enhance so you do so you can't so you can etc. Pardox City.

aslum said:

The committing 2 foundations is effectively a cost the opponent is given the option of paying to cancel the ability, similar to *Lizardman*. But regardless of that oddity, once the ability is canceled why would it un-cancel itself? What's the logic in that? Why are you cluttering this thread with this kind of meaningless sidetrack?

It's not meaningless sidetrack.

For the cost to work, it has to be separate from the effect it's canceling.

Since both effects (the damage pump, and damage pump cancel) are separate, canceling one is not canceling the enhance.

If the enhance is canceled the second effect of the enhance is no longer there to be playable or played.

Having Heel snipe cancel itself like a card having an abiltiy that reads nothing but:

"F: Commit a foundation to cancel this ability."

It doesn't make any sense.

----

If you have an ability that says "Draw a card and this attack gets +2 damage" and I use one that says "When your opponent draws cards you draw the cards instead" I'm not canceling your ability and the attack would still get +2 damage.

I have to agree with Aslum. The entire enhance is not negated, only the damage bonus.

At the point in which the opponent may cancel the damage boost the ability is being resolved, which is after the point at which it would normaly be canceled by things like Yoga Mastery, No Memories, Pieces of Eight, Chesters, ect ect ect. At that point we are literaly in the middle of resolving the enhance. Part of resolving that enhance is allowing your opponent to commit 2 foundations to cancel the damage increase. I say damage increase because when looking at context, "this effect" is obviously refering to "This attack gets +4 damage" since it is imediately preceding it, and is a effect, and not the entire enhance as a whole. And as Aslum has pointed out, there are two parts to the entire enhance and only one part of the enhance is getting canceled.

Also things like Yoga Mastery, No Memories, Pieces of Eight, Chesters, ect ect ect all reference the ability. This does not, this specifically references the effect imediately preceding it via context. If it said "Your opponent may commit 2 foundations to cancel this ability's effects" then the assertation that heel snipe's static ability would prevent your opponent from doing so. But that is not what it says. Again the canceling part of the enhance references the prior effect, not the entire ability.

...except the damage bonus is the ONLY enhance. The rest is like the portion of Red Lotus that references Kyo - has nothing to do with the ability itself.

MegaGeese said:

Well with that being said. I guess the E of stand off is pretty much just the pump, but has a built in way for my oppenent to cancel it right? so then wont heel snipe shake its sword and say nay since the pump is the E. We all know Heel Snipe prevents someone playing No Memories R and is it not pretty much the same thing? An E's effect is going to be canceled by a card. Heel Snipe dont care where the cancel is comming from it just says no to it right?

"If you have an ability that says "Draw a card and this attack gets +2 damage" and I use one that says "When your opponent draws cards you draw the cards instead" I'm not canceling your ability and the attack would still get +2 damage."

But that's a different case altogether because you're just replacing the draw 2 with your own draw 2. There's no canceling or anything like that.

Lemme put it another way. It was ruled back with Higher Calibur and *Lizardman* that if you used Higher Calibur's Enhance, your opponent could not use the "escapes" on *Lizardman* that work exactly the same way as Stand Off's Enhances. Same concept.

Stamps for MegaGeese and Magumo.

So let me get this straight...

If an effect only negates part of the enhance it is considered to negate the entire enhance for effects such as this? Just want to be completely clear there.

And also...

The canceling part of the enhance is now a continuous ability that is not part of the enhance at all? Just want to be completely clear here.

Yay for more "Because I say so" rulings.

Think whatever you want to, I guess. But please, keep muddying the issue with your personal gripe.

I'm just going to throw out there for laughs one other point - Heel Snipe doesn't say it only stops cancellation of entire abilities. All it says is that "enhances may not be canceled" - which is exactly what Stand Off's escape clause says it does. cancel effects.

Every negation ability since set 1 save Lost Memories has said it canceled effects, rather than canceling the ability. Lost Memories is, as far as I've noted from glancing over different cards, the only one that actually says "negate the ability".

Are you trying to say you think Heel Snipe should only protect your Enhances from Lost Memories?

edit: I pose another fun question to you. Let's say you're playing Kyo, your opponent Forms with Olcadan's. You respond with Red Lotus, using the Kyo-specific part of the effect and discarding a momentum instead of committing it (first of all, how'd you get to the point where you could do that without committing it?). What do you think should happen if your opponent negates your Red Lotus with Inhuman Perception or Chester's Backing? Does the Kyo clause get negated and you get your momentum back & have to commit Red Lotus instead...?

I can assure you, this is no "because I say so" ruling. It makes sense if you use your head for more than about five seconds, so take your gripe about the rules team elsewhere please.

Well if you had bothered reading the arguments against you instead of ignoring them you would have seen what was being argued...

Let me repeat right here for you what was stated before:

Also things like Yoga Mastery, No Memories, Pieces of Eight, Chesters, ect ect ect all reference the ability. This does not, this specifically references the effect imediately preceding it via context. If it said "Your opponent may commit 2 foundations to cancel this ability's effects" then the assertation that heel snipe's static ability would prevent your opponent from doing so. But that is not what it says. Again the canceling part of the enhance references the prior effect, not the entire ability.

They reference the ability itself. Stand off does not reference the ability. Stand off's cancelation references the effect imediately preceding the cancel ability via context.

No one said that Heal snipe would only prevent No Memories. My point is that it would stop anything that would cancel the entire ability. No Memories, Pieces of Eight, ect ect ect just about everything out there that cancels a entire ability references the ability's effects. As in the entire ability. Everything the ability does is part of the abilities effects. Thus all of those would be stopped by heal snipe.

What Aslum and I have been saying is with Stand Off, the cancelation part is part of the enhance ability. Its not a continuous ability, its literaly part of the enhance. This canceling ability is part of the resolution of said ability, and the canceling ability does not cancel itself. It cancels "this effect" which we know via context to be "This attack gets +4 damage". Because it does not state "...to cancel this ability's effects" it doesn't cancel the entire ability, only part of it.

Hence why I had 2 questions to your ruling. Are you ruling that the cancelation part of Stand Off is now a continuous ability and wholy not a part of the enhance like it currently is? And/Or are you ruling that if only a portion of a enhance gets canceled/negated the entire enhance counts as being negated for effects that are looking for that such as Heel Snipe?

This is all Chicken or Egg crap. If this were all true your cards with restrictions on play that are the last line of the effect would never work as the restriction would never kick in until after you payed cost for effect. Same with most X values.

Pure and simple answer here, there is already tried and true precident on how this should work (Lizardman and HC) so there should be no argument.

Since you don't seem to want to actually look up the cards, I posted a ridiculous amount of scans right there for you of effects that can cancel an enhance during the enhance step of Heel Snipe.

However, not a single card I posted above, including the infamous Yoga Mastery, actually cancels the ability played . They all cancel the ability's effects .

BlindProphet, you said "Also things like Yoga Mastery, No Memories, Pieces of Eight, Chesters, ect ect ect all reference the ability. This does not, this specifically references the effect imediately preceding it via context. If it said "Your opponent may commit 2 foundations to cancel this ability's effects" then the assertation that heel snipe's static ability would prevent your opponent from doing so. But that is not what it says. Again the canceling part of the enhance references the prior effect, not the entire ability. "

None of the cards I listed above technically negate or cancel the entire ability, all they cancel are its effects.

Are you trying to make an argument that all of the above cards can still cancel Enhances' effects through Heel Snipe, since Heel Snipe only says "Enhances may not be canceled" - not that their effects may not be canceled!?

Oh man, I guess that means this other card sucks pretty bad since it can't respond to 90% of the negation in the game...

edit: and I like how you deftly evaded my Red Lotus question, BlindProphet.

Tagrineth said:

Yup you posted a rediculous amount of scans that added nothing to your argument, nor took anything away from mine. Since you fail at reading...

All of the above things reference the ability and canceling the entire abilities effects. Thus the entire ability is effectively canceled. Canceling a ability and canceling a abilitys effects are the same thing. I prety much stated that. And I believe I re-iterated that Heel snipe would indeed stop all of those things you mentioned there. Wait...wait what did I exactly say? Oh right...

"No one said that Heal snipe would only prevent No Memories. My point is that it would stop anything that would cancel the entire ability. No Memories, Pieces of Eight, ect ect ect just about everything out there that cancels a entire ability references the ability's effects. As in the entire ability. Everything the ability does is part of the abilities effects. Thus all of those would be stopped by heal snipe ."

I know its hard for you to read Tag. So I bolded for you. Coppied straight from the same post you coppied and bolded the other paragraph from.

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.

Thats not rocket science. Thats what i've been arguing as being the case. What I have been arguing, and that you've been ignoring, is the fact that if you haven't negated all of a abilitys effects you have negated the entire ability, thus getting around heel snipe.

Since you didn't like me not directly reviewing your red lotus question...I'll take a moment to review it now. Yes. It is extreamly poorly templated. As the rules are written you have to commit Red Lotus in order to play its ability REGARDLESS of what character you're playing. Yes, that means if your Kyo and you play Red Lotus, you still have to commit it. By the rules, as written, thats the way it works. It needs a errata to work the way it was intended by the rules.

Also you still haven't answered either question I posed...

To the argument of "Well we have a example of how it was ruled before"...just because it was ruled that way before does not mean it was ruled correctly before. We have numerous rulings even in these forums where things have been ruled incorrectly. We should not be taking previous rulings on blind faith that they are indeed right, and should take time each time to see what the previous rulings were, why they were made that way, what the actually say, and so on and so forth and then make a ruling. For example, a individual ruled that according to the rules face down cards in ones staging area could not be looked at. Nothing in the rules documents supported that but it was ruled that way. So just because someone rules something does not mean it was correctly ruled.

ok so here is how it is:

first blind prophet i know you think your right and everything but you don't have to insult people.

secondly you have yet to define where stand off's negation designates just the damage pump.

when you look at stand off in this way i hope it helps:

Stand off:

Enhance ABILITY commit 2 foundation: Your attack gets +4 damage (effect). Your opponent may commit 2 foundations to cancel this effect (effect).

now you say that an ability is not negated untill all its effects are negated. Stand off's E has 2 effects. One is the damage pump, and the second is the ability for your opponent to negate "this effect". Now if we look at it your way and its supposed to negate just the 1 EFFECT, then using the english language this game oh so loves, "this effect" is the effect that allows the cancel.

now we get to my real point, look at stand off this way (along with cards with restrictions and things like red lotus):

Stand off:

Enhance ABILITY commit 2 foundation: Your attack gets +4 damage (effect). Your opponent may commit 2 foundations to cancel this effect (restriction/alternate play option)

this is how these cards are meant to be. Lines at the end of effects that affect the effect before after or during the effect do not apply to the effect statement. this is a seperate section that needs to be outlined better yes but is how it is. Now we look at it your way and the game goes "Ok, since the commit 2 foundations to negate this isn't an effect it obviosly is referencing the damage pump. So i'll negate the pump" and then look. ALL EFFECTS OF THE ABILITY HAVE BEEN NEGATED. thus the ability has been negated.

Except how you want to read that is not at all supported by the rules currently. You can say it is all you want, but it isn't. There is nothing currently in the rules (1.9 since they haven't posted the new rules) that defines what you're saying. It simply doesn't exist rules wise. Sorry but thats just how it is... Your position isn't supported by the rules at this time while my position is.

401.1 Played abilities are preceded by a bold face term (E, F, and R). Each of the different types of abilities has a separate time when they can be played. Played abilities are written as (Ability Type Abbreviation) (Cost): (Game Effect of Ability). The cost is everything before the colon. Anything that appears before the colon on an ability is a cost. Costs are not optional. Costs may only be paid using cards controlled by the player wishing to play the ability. When playing an action card a player must make the control check before paying the costs to play that card. Cards in a card pool may not be used to pay a cost unless specifically stated otherwise. If a part of a cost is to commit foundations you may use your character card as a foundation card to pay these costs.

As I said, Red Lotus's Kyo ability doesn't work as the card is written, according to the 1.9 rules. You may go, "Thats not how its supposed to work" and thats great, the rules simply don't support that. Hence why I keep asking the same two **** questions that no one wants to answer...

Bear with me here. Why are you assuming that Stand offs cancel this effect line dosent refer to the entire effect of the ability and instead refers to just the damage pump. The games rules you quoted state that an effect is:

(Ability Type Abbreviation) (Cost): (Game Effect of Ability)

Thusly EVERYTHING after the cost is the abilities Effect. There is no reason or context to believe that the card refers to just the damge pump/negation and not the whole of the ability. IF the card said you cam commit 2 foundations to cancel this damage pump or something like that you would have a case, but as it stands I dont see why you would assume the ability is just one line and not the whole shebang.

Protoaddict said:

Now theres a argument for the other side. And I would believe that...doesn't fix red lotus but would fix this to work as intended.

If we were to ignore that however ( I am conceding to Proto's argument above btw ) contextually "this" refers to one of two things. Either the +4 damage or the canceling abiltiy itself. And the answer to which one of those is which makes sense. Example: "A man walks in the door. This man has blue eyes. " Contextually you can determin that the man in the first scentence has blue eyes as nothing was included with the second scentence to direct you otherwise.