Cactus Game Design Message Boards
Redemption® Collectible Trading Card Game HQ => Official Rules & Errata => Ruling Questions => Topic started by: Josh on March 24, 2015, 12:39:41 PM
-
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.
-
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.
-
TgotW isn't a draw ability but rather a reduce a draw ability. Iron Pan would not negate the CBN draw off AUTO so I would conclude you would draw one for AUTO.
-
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?
-
TgotW isn't a draw ability but rather a reduce a draw ability. Iron Pan would not negate the CBN draw off AUTO so I would conclude you would draw one for AUTO.
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.
-
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...
-
The god of this World has an implied "instead" even though the actual word isn't spelled out on the special ability. It takes one effect (draw X) and replaces it with another effect (draw X-1).
In the example described, AUtO's original draw 2 is replaced by a draw ability that is being negated. The result is a draw 0.
Congratulations, you've just found a way to slow down AUtO! :)
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
So under the same principle if the person using auto played mayhem then he draws 0?
-
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.
-
Also, if the draw ability now comes from your EC, does that mean PoZ wouldn't trigger?
-
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.
-
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.
If this is true I can see a lot of people running to change their decks, lol. Well, maybe only if they have a similar deck setup, but still, this is powerful.
Also I can see the valur on a few certain cards going up in value.
Some people are a lot smarter than I am, nice strategy!
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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?
The negate isn't stopping the instead, it's stopping the ability caused by the instead. AUtO enters battle and attempts to draw. The god of this World says nuh-uh, I'm going to change your draw ability to my draw ability and make the number 1 less. The god of this World then attempts to draw and Iron Pan says nuh-uh, you don't get to draw anything.
Iron Pan doesn't care in the slightest that TgotW's draw was originally AUtO's draw, it just sees TgotW trying to draw and won't have any of that.
-
@YMT, it doesn't show up here because I am specifically assigned as a moderator for Rulings, but check out any of my posts on other boards ;) Thanks for the kind words, as always :)
Right, so if you can't instead an ability to some other effect than how can you nullify that ability?
I think browarod did a really good job of laying it out there, but I have a feeling you'll not be satisfied with the Simon vs Entrapping part, so can you please explain, in the same level of detail, what happens in the Simon vs Entrapping, and where you draw parallels to this? That will help us to answer your question more completely.
-
@YMT, it doesn't show up here because I am specifically assigned as a moderator for Rulings, but check out any of my posts on other boards ;) Thanks for the kind words, as always :)
Right, so if you can't instead an ability to some other effect than how can you nullify that ability?
I think browarod did a really good job of laying it out there, but I have a feeling you'll not be satisfied with the Simon vs Entrapping part, so can you please explain, in the same level of detail, what happens in the Simon vs Entrapping, and where you draw parallels to this? That will help us to answer your question more completely.
I believe what he is saying is simon the zealot goes up and protects your hand from opponents' cards. Entrapping Pharisees come up, reveal an N.T gray card to capture simon the zealot, or opponent may discard a card of hero's matching brigade instead. Since this would mean Entrapping Pharisees would be discarding a card from opponents hand, simons protect ability kicks in not allowing holder to discard card, so Simon, is auto captured.
I think that's what the hobbit was trying to say.
-
If anything I said was wrong feel free to correct me :).
-
Right so in both cases the instead doesn't work because the conditions of it are not met.
-
The difference here, as I think someone said before, is that protect and negate function differently. Simon's protect means Entrapping Pharisees can't target your hand for the instead, so you're forced to allow your character to be captured. The instead tries to apply but its condition cannot be met so it fizzles.
In the case of TgotW/Iron Pan/AUtO, the instead on TgotW also triggers off of AUtO's draw ability and attempts to instead the draw. In this case there is nothing protecting AUtO from evil cards so TgotW's instead succeeds and changes the effect. Since TgotW is now the source of the draw, and he is not protected from negate, Iron Pan is able to negate the changed draw ability. The instead already happened and changed the ability, Iron Pan doesn't prevent or negate that. IP simply prevents the changed ability from happening.
There is nothing stopping the instead, and preventing the changed ability doesn't undo the instead. It targeted, it completed, the instead is done and over with. What happens to the changed ability after that is separate from the instead ability itself.
With Simon's protect, the instead never gets to complete because the cost can't be met. With TgotW the instead completes, but the changed ability is prevented.
-
Also don't forget that ironpan/gotw is a 2 card combo (that I think needs a bab in play also?so 3) and auto is 1. I don't see the set up play winning against the stand alone so...
-
Also don't forget that ironpan/gotw is a 2 card combo (that I think needs a bab in play also?so 3) and auto is 1. I don't see the set up play winning against the stand alone so...
You would be right if this was the only situation where it is viable, or if Iron Pan was the only way to make this work, but this will affect every single draw ability your opponent uses, and on top of that, GOTW is still useful on his own, as it still halves the draw AUTO gives. I don't really think this is a bad thing... that being said, I don't think it will have a major impact since Rain Becomes Dust never really did, and that did essentially the same thing, except better and was a single card, the only disadvantage is that curses may be the easiest card type to get rid of, although evil characters are fairly close, but easier to protect, so we'll have to see.
-
The god of this World has an implied "instead" even though the actual word isn't spelled out on the special ability. It takes one effect (draw X) and replaces it with another effect (draw X-1).
In the example described, AUtO's original draw 2 is replaced by a draw ability that is being negated. The result is a draw 0.
Congratulations, you've just found a way to slow down AUtO! :)
I thought AUTO was a CBN draw? How can anything negate a CBN? Maybe I'm just not understanding.
-
Auto isn't being negated, he's being insteaded by God of this World. And since the draw is now coming from GotW it can be negated so AUtO draws nothing.
-
Also don't forget that ironpan/gotw is a 2 card combo (that I think needs a bab in play also?so 3) and auto is 1. I don't see the set up play winning against the stand alone so...
Seven Years of Famine would be easier to use than Iron Pan, if you ask me.
-
Or the Pigs Lost Soul, yes, there are several options that would work. The main thing is that this would actually get around CBN draws and not be quite as squishy as a Curse, or vulnerable to counters as Cherubim, and as long as you have TgotW out it is at least making draw less useful and protecting from convert, so that's always nice.
-
Hypothetically what if a card negate discard abilities? Can you just "attempt" to use Herod's Temple an use it for no cost?
-
I still don't quite get it. If goTW's ability is a draw ability, isn't it negated and it never has a chance to instead the draw by AUtO?
-
Yes by the same token this demon requires that opponent draw -1 to instead.
I still don't quite get it. If goTW's ability is a draw ability, isn't it negated and it never has a chance to instead the draw by AUtO?
That's what I am trying to say.
-
That's what I am trying to say.
So your question is, why is Herod's Temple a cost-benefit ability, when TgotW is not, and yet both are "Instead" abilities.
-
Yes by the same token this demon requires that opponent draw -1 to instead.I still don't quite get it. If goTW's ability is a draw ability, isn't it negated and it never has a chance to instead the draw by AUtO?
That's what I am trying to say.
To further clarify, I think they mean that the ability is prevented before it can activate and instead AutO's ability, so it wouldn't stop the draw.
-
Yeah, as much as I understand the logic for this ruling, I have to agree with the dissenters here. If you have to be able to do the cost of the instead on Herod's Temple (that is actually discarding cards), you should have to be able to do the "cost" on the god of this world. It doesn't really make sense for one to be ruled a cost-benefit, and the other to not be.
-
Not all instead abilities are a cost/benefit. You can tell if a card is a cost benefit ability if it's worded "Do (pay) X to do Y". Since TgotW doesn't have that type of wording it's not a cost benefit ability.
-
Not all instead abilities are a cost/benefit. You can tell if a card is a cost benefit ability if it's worded "Do (pay) X to do Y". Since TgotW doesn't have that type of wording it's not a cost benefit ability.
Except Herod's temple doesn't have that type of wording either.
"If your N.T. human is discarded by a special ability used by an opponent, you may discard a card of matching brigade from hand and the top X cards of your deck instead. Put Lost Souls in play instead."
There's no "to" in there like you bolded in your wording. The word instead isn't on the god of this world, but if it was you could put it here
"Protect Evil Characters from conversion. If an opponent would draw because of his special ability, he draws 1 less instead"
Its the same type of wording, yet one is somehow a cost-benefit, and the other is not.
-
Herod's temple doesn't have that wording either http://redemption.wikia.com/wiki/Herod%E2%80%99s_Temple_(Di)
Instapost by drrek
-
I didn't mention Herod's Temple. I'm still attempting to help you understand why TgotW interacts the way it does. I'm becoming convinced you don't want to understand though, in which case there's nothing more I can do. Topic closed.
**EDIT**
I've been messaged by others who desire to continue this discussion and believe the is some legitimacy in doing so. I've unlocked the thread, however if there is any trolling or disrespect toward other players, posts will be removed and it will be locked again.
-
I feel like there is a conversation to be had regarding this ability and whether you could do as TheHobbit suggested. The way that I am reading the rules, and precedent, I would rule that you are correct, in if you (somehow) negated just the discard component of Herod's Temple, you could instead for free any discard special ability used by an opponent.
I am in disagreement with Gabe's assessment on it, and I am also going to assume others, by taking this side, so it is IN NO WAY official.
However, despite my position on this, I'm not sure it matters specifically, because I'm not sure there exists a current card combination that would lead to a problem with either interpretation.
So, for those who have come up with this question, I challenge you to find one of the following:
1. A card combo that exploits HT in this way.
2. A different card combo that somehow breaks a normally 'cost-benefit' instead ability on a different card with the same situation.
-
Goodness (http://redemption.wikia.com/wiki/Goodness_%28TEC%29), Iron Pan (http://redemption.wikia.com/wiki/Iron_Pan_%28FF2%29), and an End the Battle ability. Assuming the draw is the cost for the insteading benefit.
The other issue is I don't really see TgoTW as cost-benefit, which is a rarity (if not the only) among the Instead abilities.
-
So the reason it works with goTW is because even though it's not worded like it, the ability is sort of in two parts? The first part insteads the draw, and the second makes them draw one less. So iron pan only negates the second part?
-
TgotW - Protect Evil Characters from conversion. If an opponent would draw because of his special ability, he draws 1 less.
This can be rewritten as "Protect Evil Characters from conversion. If an opponent would draw because of his special ability, he instead draws 0, and opponent must draw X-1 cards, where X is the amount of cards that would have been drawn." It's clunky, I know, but shows how TgotW + Iron Pan makes your opponent unable to draw ever, and how his ability is not a cost-benefit ability.
Herod's Temple - If your N.T. human is discarded by a special ability used by an opponent, you may discard a card of matching brigade from hand and the top X cards of your deck instead. Put Lost Souls in play instead.
This can be rewritten as "If your N.T. human would be discarded by a special ability used by an opponent, you may discard a card of matching brigade from hand and the top X cards of your deck (put Lost Souls in play instead) to keep the character from being discarded instead." Once again, clunkier than the original wording, but this is how the ability was designed to work; it's an "Instead" ability, and to get the benefit of the "Instead" ability, you have to pay a cost first.
*****
The abilities are the same, except that TgotW has a costless instead, and HT does not.
-
That works if you want to re write abilities. But as it is Herod's temple is not a cost benefit ability. Yet I have always looked as insteads in the sense that you must perform the modification actually instead the ability. Otherwise you are not doing something instead which defeats the purposes of the ability.
-
I'm honestly not too familiar here, with Redemption yet, or Instead abilities, but I think I understand and I think I can help. It sounds like a few people still have a hard time understanding how this exactly works. It helped me to imagine a different Instead ability in the situation. So let's pretend I have an evil character like this:
Zach's Bad Guy - If an Opponent would draw any number of cards, you draw 1 instead.
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.
(Assume a Babylonian in play along with both of these cards)
---
Here's how it flows:
- Opponent attacks with a card with a draw ability ("draw X amount of cards, cannot be negated") - it cannot be negated, so Iron Pan indeed does not negate it. But it tried :)
- Because opponent has a draw ability, Zach's Bad Guy "insteads" the ability. (If I'm understanding it right, this means that the ability triggered by opponent's card is pretty much ignored and an ability on my card is triggered instead.) So no ability is coming from opponent's card, and a "draw 1" ability comes from my card. Yay! I get to draw 1!
- Not so fast! The Iron Pan card is on the lookout for any draw abilities that are triggered, and now we finally have one that can be negated. Wah wah. My draw ability ends right there and I do not draw. If Zach's Bad Guy said ".. you draw 1 instead, cannot be negated," then I would have been able to.
Imagining the ability a little differently helped me. But it's really the same with The God of This World: the draw ability triggers and is negated. I hope this helps.
---
As for the Herod's Temple question, that could be moved into a new thread. There may need to be an official ruling on how costs work. My questions are: Is Herod's Temple officially a cost? Is a cost of discarding treated as a "discard ability" that could even be negated? Is a cost just a regular ability like that? (This may have an answer somewhere. If so I'd be interested in reading it.)
(Brief thoughts: Without too much thought, I would assume that a cost would be something that needs to be met, and I'm not sure if it could be negated or not. I suppose a card could say, "Opponent may not discard to pay a cost." so you could prevent opponent from doing certain things that require a discard cost.)
-
Goodness (http://redemption.wikia.com/wiki/Goodness_%28TEC%29), Iron Pan (http://redemption.wikia.com/wiki/Iron_Pan_%28FF2%29), and an End the Battle ability. Assuming the draw is the cost for the insteading benefit.
The other issue is I don't really see TgoTW as cost-benefit, which is a rarity (if not the only) among the Instead abilities.
This is what I was looking for, thank you for a great example of what we would normally consider to be a 'benefit' instead and a real example of how that could be put in the same discussion.
I think there were some great thoughts given in this thread. However, I don't believe that any additional discussion here will help matters get resolved, and so any conversation about the related rules and rulings here is TEMPORARILY closed.
I do NOT want to lock the topic while this is being worked on, though, because I do want different examples if people think of some.
So, please table all discussion of the actual rule until further notice, and use the rulings given until we come back with an update.
Thank you for a great conversation!
-
Poisoned Minds (http://redemption.wikia.com/wiki/Poisoned_Minds_%28Ki%29) andCenturion's Proclamation (http://redemption.wikia.com/wiki/Centurion%E2%80%99s_Proclamation_%28Di%29).
Maybe optional ("may") Insteads are cost-benefit, and others ("Put LS in play instead", TgoTW, etc.) are not?
-
I'm bumping this, because if it works, I'm debating building it into my tournament deck. Any update from the Elders?
-
This is not being ignored, just for the record. There is no update to give beyond the rulings given at this time, however.
-
okay so based on this ruling if:
priest of zeus and god of this world are both in a territory.
the opponent plays mayhem.
does priest of zeus dc one from their territory and they draw 1 less for gotw? or is it one or the other with the owner having to pick since the gotw is now an instead where it is gotw draw ability and not mayhem? therefore not triggering poz
-
Update: the rulings in this thread have been overturned and/or clarified in REG 3.0.0 (http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/redemption-official-rules/new-rulings-for-the-2015-2016-redemption-season-36320/):
If the 'new' ability to be done by Instead is prevented or cannot be completed entirely, the 'original' ability remains
10. An instead ability replaces a completed action or ability with another effect. If this new effect is prevented, or cannot otherwise be completed in its entirety, then the original effect is still applied because the other effect did not happen 'instead'.
So if TgotW's draw is prevented, then the original effect still happens, because nothing happened 'instead' of the original effect.
priest of zeus and god of this world are both in a territory.
the opponent plays mayhem.
In this case, The Priest of Zeus (http://redemption.wikia.com/wiki/The_Priest_of_Zeus_(TEC)) is an ongoing trigger, and is therefore pending and unable to insert between other abilities. The god of this World (http://redemption.wikia.com/wiki/The_god_of_this_World_(TEC)) is a mandatory instead ability, and its draw happens "instead" of the original effect immediately; the original draw 'never happened' and now TgotW is the source of the draw. You do not get to trigger Priest, since it was not your opponent's ability that let them draw.
-
alright thanks!
-
I know I'm new but I would say that AUTO would still draw 2 since he is CBN. If CBN is both cannot be interrupted and cannot be prevented, the essence of those would be violated if Tgotw could limit his draw which is essentially is preventing/interrupting his draw 2 and the instead isn't included in Tgotw ability.
Furthermore, I would say that Iron pan would negate Tgotw's ability because, although it isn't the typical draw ability, it still uses the word "draw".
-
TgotW's ability is a draw ability as it makes you draw, so you are correct that Iron Pan negates that portion of his ability on the basis of it being a draw ability. It negates the other part as a protect ability as well, but that is neither here nor there...
Now instead is neither an interrupt, nor is it a negate. As such, it doesn't stop CBN abilities but rather replaces them with a new ability. Since instead doesn't try to stop the CBN abilities but replace them, CBN abilities can be instead all the instead-er can legally achieve. Which, incidentally, was the whole point of instead...
-
Praeceps is correct, Instead can still work on a CBN target because it isn't 'undoing' or 'stopping' it but rather having something else happen "instead."
However, as noted in my post, the previous ruling is not still in effect; that is, if you prevent TgotW's draw ability, he cannot have the draw happen "instead" and so AutO would not have his draw insteaded (it still happens).
Hope this all makes sense.
-
Praeceps is correct, Instead can still work on a CBN target because it isn't 'undoing' or 'stopping' it but rather having something else happen "instead."
However, as noted in my post, the previous ruling is not still in effect; that is, if you prevent TgotW's draw ability, he cannot have the draw happen "instead" and so AutO would not have his draw insteaded (it still happens).
Hope this all makes sense.
Does this mean you can draw through RBD with 4-Drachma Coin active?
-
Does this mean you can draw through RBD with 4-Drachma Coin active?
It used to be no, as you would reveal and replace, but with the new wording (4DC protects from the discard and thus the instead can't be completed in its entirety) then yes, with 4DC you can draw through RBD.
-
RBD insteads the draw with a reveal, the next SA is stopped by 4DC, draw still stopped.
-
Does this mean you can draw through RBD with 4-Drachma Coin active?
It used to be no, as you would reveal and replace, but with the new wording (4DC protects from the discard and thus the instead can't be completed in its entirety) then yes, with 4DC you can draw through RBD.
Praeceps, as I answered in this thread (http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/ruling-questions/new-ruling-on-instead-abilities-being-prevented-etc/msg550327/#msg550327), your statement is incorrect (Pol is using the same reasoning here).
You cannot draw through RBD with 4DC because the reveal is what is happening instead. The additional effects are not tied to the instead, but defines what to do with the revealed cards; they are still revealed, so you did accomplish the instead.
-
Does this mean you can draw through RBD with 4-Drachma Coin active?
It used to be no, as you would reveal and replace, but with the new wording (4DC protects from the discard and thus the instead can't be completed in its entirety) then yes, with 4DC you can draw through RBD.
Praeceps, as I answered in this thread (http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/ruling-questions/new-ruling-on-instead-abilities-being-prevented-etc/msg550327/#msg550327), your statement is incorrect (Pol is using the same reasoning here).
You cannot draw through RBD with 4DC because the reveal is what is happening instead. The additional effects are not tied to the instead, but defines what to do with the revealed cards; they are still revealed, so you did accomplish the instead.
You do realize... my response here is over 3 weeks old and was made before your post there where you corrected me?
-
You do realize... my response here is over 3 weeks old and was made before your post there where you corrected me?
No, I must have missed this the first go-around (looking back, I was out on my anniversary that extended weekend and I think I might have missed a few threads as a result). Pol's response lit back up this thread for me. Sorry about that.
-
Praeceps is correct, Instead can still work on a CBN target because it isn't 'undoing' or 'stopping' it but rather having something else happen "instead."
However, as noted in my post, the previous ruling is not still in effect; that is, if you prevent TgotW's draw ability, he cannot have the draw happen "instead" and so AutO would not have his draw insteaded (it still happens).
Hope this all makes sense.
for clarification does this mean that the god of this world is now considered a draw ability and not an instead therefore being negated all together by pan?
-
for clarification does this mean that the god of this world is now considered a draw ability and not an instead therefore being negated all together by pan?
What he is has not changed at all. He has an "instead" that triggers a draw ability. The latter is negated by Pan, and so by the way instead now works, cannot be used to "instead" the draw on another card into nothing.