So, after playing with my local playgroup one of them brought up something he had heard regarding negation of abilities that I wanted to clarify because it sounded very off. Basically it was a technicality on when an ability can be negated.

The issue was this. I had a copy of chester's backing and my opponent had a copy of chinese boxing in play. On his attack he opted to use his first Enhance using the boxing to target one of my foundations. His claim was that I had choose to use chester's backing before he chose the target for chinese boxing. His reasoning was that once the effect of the chinese boxing allowed him to choose the foundation that the effect had already resolved and that the window to cancel it had passed already.

I promptly stated that the ability hasn't been played until all costs and effects have resolved and that chesters will negate the ability only after it has reached the resolution step, ie after he chose the foundation. Chester's exact wording (and the wording of most negation cards) reads 'after an ability has been played'. An ability hasn't been played until it's costs have been paid and its effects have reached the resolution step, correct?

So my question is whether or not my opponent was trying to weasel his way into getting a free shot off of chinese boxing or was he correct. I'm 99% sure that he's wrong but I wanted to make sure.

Your opponent was not weaseling his way out; a card or ability is considered played when all costs are paid not when the card resolves. He is right in that you have to respond to his Chinese Boxing before he chooses which card to commit. If you do not then it will be too late to negate the card's effect.

From the rules guide for reference:

8.1.4 A card is considered played after it has been declared and any costs paid, but before its effect resolves.

Has it always been like that? I've been in the game since the very first set and have been to a couple of large tournaments. I've never heard it ruled like that. Each and every case I've seen people play the ability and then you're able to decide whether or not to cancel it based on its target. I've had multiple cases in a foundation and asset of power tournament that allowed it played like that so I can't see how it could have been like that way back then.

Frankly I think that's pretty bogus with chinese boxing. As if that card needed any more power.

Not to be rude and all, but I would like to hear an official ruling on this.

That's how it's always been, going all the way back to stuff like Friends and Rivals vs. Yoga Mastery/Lost Memories - they didn't get to see if you were going to make them commit foundations or change the zone of the attack before negating it.

There's no such thing as a "negation step", as a note.

The basic steps of abilities are more or less

1 - Declare intent to play ability

2 - Pay all costs

3 - Ability is now considered played

4 - Begin resolving ability, declare intent and targets now

Abilities that cancel other abilities, e.g. Chester's Backing, respond to 3.

In effect, Chinese Boxing didn't "gain" anything, it's been that way for nearly a year.

If it hurts you that badly, start playing Torn Hero and The Red Lotus of the Sun in your decks. Torn Hero will make your opponent think twice about using Chinese Boxing.

I would but my deck can't run em. There's nothing like that for All except Chesters so I guess I'll have to rethink the deck. Thanks for the info.

Keep in mind that this order of operations has become more prominent as of later sets because of th wording of most cards. If an ability responds to the "Play" of an ability it happens before the resolution of the ability, but if responds to something like "after x happens to your card" it usually after the ability has resolved. In the original sets you didnt get ito this as much because alot of abilities either responded to the result of an effect, or directly to the ability so that target was irrelivant because there could only be the one thing. But it has always been this way.

Tagrineth said:

Wait, then how does red lotus work but chesters doesn't? They're the same wording. According to this Red lotus has to occur at step 3 as well which it can't because there hasn't been a foundation committed yet since chinese hasn't resolved.

Um... both "work". They work before the effect resolves, but after it's played.

Here's an example:

You want to Chinese Boxing my Red Lotus. You declare you are enhancing with CBoxing.

I cancel your CBoxing with RL.

You cancel my RL with Chester's Backing.

Your CBacking resolves and you gain some life.

My RL has been canceled and does not resolve.

Your CBoxing resolves. You can no longer CBoxing my RL because it is committed, however if I have any other foundations ready you could CB one of those as you "target" when you resolve, not when you play.

Another example:

You use Chinese Boxing. I have a Chester's and a Red Lotus. I can cancel it with either one, but I have to do it before you declare what you are going to "target" with the Cboxing.

aslum said:

This is where I'm saying I see a problem based on how it's ruled. Red lotus would only work after the foundation has been committed because of it's trigger "after an ability that commits, destroys, removes, a card, etc is played". According to when boxing is 'played' following the steps outlined by Tag earlier nothing has been committed and there is no target then technically. It's only during the resolution of the ability that the foundation is committed and as such, from what I've been told in this thread, the point when you could negate it has already passed.

Basically I'm being told that the cards, though worded exactly the same, behave differently by some unknown distinction between them.

God why can't this game have a standard for the rules instead of having the wording change in every set. It's near impossible to read the cards and have them work the way they're intended because of all the odd technicalities that are involved.

Actually, all of it is covered under the AGR - As pointed to earlier:

8.1.4 A card is considered played after it has been declared and any costs paid, but before its effect resolves.

Feel free to read through the Advanced Game Rules.

Currently it appears that the misunderstandings are coming from trying to work exclusively off of the cards, and not using the game rules.

BTW - Zero Cross was right when he cited the rules earlier, no official ruling was needed, he copied and pasted from the most recent rules document available off of the UFS main page.

Chinese Boxing's ability is one that clearly commits a foundation. Red Lotus sees this, and says "No."

R Commit: After your opponent plays an ability that commits, destroys, or removes a card fromy our staging area, cancel that ability's effects. If your character is Kyo, you may discard 1 momentum to play this ability instead of committing this card.

plays an ability is playing the card and paying all costs, with chinese boxing the card is played when the cost is fulfilled,

E Commit : Commit 1 of your opponent's foundations. It does not ready during your opponent's next Ready Step.

thats the cost, so it would go like this...

i declare my chinese boxing E and commit the card, RIGHT HERE IS YOUR WINDOW TO RESPOND WITH RED LOTUS, if you chose not to then i chose a foundation to commit, if you do use it it negates it..

Because you negate before the effect goes through you get odd situations where red lotus can negate Amy's assistance, because red lotus "seen" that amy's has the abilty to commit an asset in yor staging area.

Cards like lotus are actually responding to abilities that have the potential to commit something. If you have Amy's assistance out and wish to use it to reduce the damage of an attack, Red lotus can still stop it because it has the potential to commit a card with its effect. Likewise prominent noblewoman can actually cancel promo Alexes ability to draw cards because it can make them gain life.