Council of Elrond

Ben Sorenson wrote:Currently, the rules state that when Tidings is played on a site affected by Unabated, "the first attempt to cancel the attack instead cancels the effects of this card is duplicated by Tidings. Therefore the first attempt to cancel the attack created by Tidings instead cancels the effects of Unabated, but Unabated still affects the site."

How is it possible for Unabated to continue affecting the site if "the effects of this card (i.e. Unabated) are cancelled"?

The basic complaint here is clear in my opinion. I am happy to overrule in this case. Does anyone disagree?

I disagree. Tidings of Bold Spies creates attack that is copy of automatic-attack (including all modification). Therefore effect of Unabated in Malice is copied too. First attempt to cancel copied attack cancel copied effect of Unabated in Malice. Original automatic-attack and effect of Unabated in Malice remain unaffected.

I've always felt that since Unabated says the first cancel attempt removes the effect of "this card" and since Tidings duplicates this then all of Unabated's effects get cancelled including the effect on the auto-attack.

After going through some old discussions about this, I don't see that anything has changed since that ruling on Tidings+Unabated. I think this is a matter or interpretation with three possible outcomes, and the netrep team was in full agreement of the ruling. Granted, Tidings+Unabated is a strong play against certain decks, but there just isn't enough reason to overturn an old ruling.

I still don't feel like people have given a logical argument about why when Unabated says "The first attempt to cancel the attack cancels the effects of this card." it doesn't cancel all of Unabated's effects. Note that the Unabated doesn't say it cancels the effects of this card on the attack, just that it cancels the effects of the card. All of the effects, and there is only one Unabated that has been played. Mark tried to explain and here's his quote:

My way of reading the 'first attempt to cancel' clause is this: 'the first attempt to cancel the attack for each time the attack is faced instead cancels the effects of UiM'. I.e., if you have to face the attack twice, then it's Unabated both times. If someone plays Unabated, then Incite Denizens, you've got 2@15 X 2, both of which need to be canceled twice. As far as I know, this has always been the standard interpretation.

But this is clearly reading into the card.

I've pretty much made all of my arguments in that earlier thread. I don't see how you can read the card and come up with the current interpretation without adding something in as Mark did, but I don't really have anything new to add.

Wacho wrote:All of the effects, and there is only one Unabated that has been played.

There is attack and copy of attack. There is effect of Unabated in Malice and copy of this effect. Copy of "effect of the card" is not "effect of the card".

That's the argument. As I mentioned above, I really have no strong feeling either way on this one. What do the rest of y'all think?

I'm fine with the current ruling.

Although it can be a bit unbalanced sometimes, I have been asked about this same situation in some tourneys, and by the estrict reading of both cards, the current interpretation is the finest.

Looks like this is done. Locked.