Cactus Game Design Message Boards

I have The god of this World, a Babylonian, and Iron Pan in play.  My opponent attacks with AUTO.  Does he draw 1 or 0?  I think 0.

The god of this World - Protect Evil Characters from conversion.  If an opponent would draw because of his special ability, he draws 1 less.

Iron Pan - If a Babylonian is in play, negate all protect, immune, ignore, draw and play abilities. Opponent may discard a good Fortress from territory to discard this card. May be activated on Ezekiel.

If anything pan negates the orange demon because his ability is a draw ability.

I'd rule that he draws 1, though I agree the only possible number he could draw would be 1 or 2, not 0. 

I love this question.

Here is the issue, is this card an instead?

Is an instead
While it does not include the word "instead", it is the same effect.  Otherwise, it could be read as "If opponent draws, he draws 1 less" meaning drawing again one fewer cards than original.  The ability describes a state, describes an alternative, and applies that alternative when the original state exists, thus it is an instead.

In this case, then I am inclined to actually rule that this one would be 0.  The source of the draw is technically TgotW in that case, which follows the ruling of Nicanor.  If the draw is negated on TgotW, the original draw is still 'insteaded' and we end with 0.  An interesting case could then also be made for a protected-from-evil deck, though I would argue that by the letter of the rule that would still go through (the deck is the target, and the rules for instead say that if the target is immune or protected from the new effect, the original applies).

Not an instead
If it is not an instead, then it is a completely new type of ability that we don't really have a definition for.  It would modify another card's ability without using 'instead', which is not really possible in the current rules to my knowledge.  But if this were the case, then the correct number is X-1, where X is a non-zero number of cards to be drawn by an ability.


So the real question is, is this card an instead?  If not, how are we defining how it does what it does?

I am not sure there is such a thing as a reduced draw ability. Its a modification of a draw ability which results in a forced draw of -1.

Which is how instead works, similar to Nicanor.  I'm not convinced this isn't an instead in the end...

As I said, I love this question.  Awesome.

I'm going with my initial impression and agreeing with Gabe's post as well.  If the draw on TgotW is negated, and just the draw, then any draw used by an opponent (meaning they control the card on which we find the ability) instead becomes no cards being drawn.

Love it.

I don't understand why the whole second sentence isn't part of the draw ability because it shapes how the draw ability works.

Because a card cannot modify another card except through using an 'instead', where it takes one condition and changes it to something new.

But why isn't the draw ability the whole sentence?

It is not the entire ability.  The ability in an Instead, and its new condition is a draw.

The ability itself is an Instead, so it must be negated as one or it at least activates.

The new condition is a draw, and can be negated independently.

Quote from: TheHobbit on March 24, 2015, 02:27:41 PM

But why isn't the draw ability the whole sentence?

It is not the entire ability.  The ability in an Instead, and its new condition is a draw.

The ability itself is an Instead, so it must be negated as one or it at least activates.

The new condition is a draw, and can be negated independently.

But the instead has to instead to something or it is effectively negated. If you negate its draw -1 then the player of auto draws as normal as the  modification of the draw is negated and there is nothing else that modifies it.

So under the same principle if the person using auto played mayhem then he draws 0?

Absolutely.

But the instead has to instead to something or it is effectively negated. If you negate its draw -1 then the player of auto draws as normal as the  modification of the draw is negated and there is nothing else that modifies it.

Just because the draw is negated does not mean that it did not attempt to activate, it just was not successful.  The instead makes something else happen, but now that something else never completes because it was negated.

It was still 'played' (attempt to activate), it just did not 'complete'.  The original effect still does not happen.

Also, if the draw ability now comes from your EC, does that mean PoZ wouldn't trigger?

Priest of Zeus as a trigger would not go off if the draw were insteaded, that is correct.  It is also consistent with other rulings on Instead and draw.  If your own ability makes them draw, he cannot go off, and that is consistent with other rulings.

You have to modify the ability on order to instead it. You can't instead it to nothing. Otherwise if a card restricted cards from being discarded from your deck deck you could just attempt to I stead the discard and save your character.

I think Redoubter has done a good job of explaining how and why this works.

When is this ever not true? 

If Redoubter is not an Elder yet, then this thread should be part of his resume and application.

Quote from: Gabe on March 24, 2015, 03:37:28 PM

Quote from: TheHobbit on March 24, 2015, 03:31:17 PM

You have to modify the ability on order to instead it. You can't instead it to nothing.

This seems to be where you're hung up. For the example in this thread, the opponent's CBN draw ability was replaced by your draw ability. It just happens that your draw ability is being negated.

I think Redoubter has done a good job of explaining how and why this works. Maybe try to go back and re-read what he's wrote and that will help you wrap your mind around this.

How is this situation different form entrapping pharisee and Simon the zealot? Entrapping pharisee auto captures. In both situation you don't fulfill the conditions of the instead bit they have different results so I am confused.

Because there's a specific rule about how instead abilities interact with protection, negate doesn't have that.

Quote from: TheHobbit on March 24, 2015, 03:51:38 PM

How is this situation different form entrapping pharisee and Simon the zealot? Entrapping pharisee auto captures. In both situation you don't fulfill the conditions of the instead bit they have different results so I am confused.

Protection limits targets. You cannot choose to target something unless it's a legal choice.

Negate doesn't limit targets, it just says that the negated ability doesn't work.

Right, so if you can't instead an ability to some other effect than how can you nullify that ability?