Author Topic: Protection of Angels  (Read 16058 times)

Offline STAMP

  • Tournament Host
  • Trade Count: (+19)
  • *****
  • Posts: 5014
  • Redemption brings Freedom
    • -
    • Northwest Region
Re: Protection of Angels
« Reply #100 on: July 16, 2009, 11:01:59 AM »
0
You see?  I don't get headaches when I fish.  :rollin:
Final ANB errata: Return player to game.

Offline Gabe

  • Global Moderator
  • Trade Count: (+69)
  • *****
  • Posts: 10675
  • From Moses to the prophets, it's all about Him!
    • -
    • North Central Region
    • Land of Redemption
Re: Protection of Angels
« Reply #101 on: July 16, 2009, 11:02:55 AM »
0
Some people just can't let a dead horse die. ::)
Have you visited the Land of Redemption today?

Offline Professoralstad

  • Tournament Host, Redemption Elder
  • Trade Count: (+47)
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10841
  • Everything is Awesome!
    • -
    • North Central Region
Re: Protection of Angels
« Reply #102 on: July 16, 2009, 11:15:32 AM »
0
I think this is a bad ruling because If I have my LS in a green site when I play ANB, then at the time the card was played, My EC's were protected from the ANB because they were immune to green brigade enhancements.  At the same time, if I have EC's in Kingdoms, at the time the card was played, they were protected from the effect. 

The 'lost protection' idea from the REG brought up the argument that the Color Guard wouldn't protect EC's from ANB a long time ago (like, before I took a year+ long absence from the boards), and it was ruled then that the REG was wrong, but that Kingdoms was different because of the cards follow hosts line of thinking. So the characters definitely don't lose protection, they just get tossed in the ocean with the concrete bunker they are in. 
Press 1 for more options.

Offline Prof Underwood

  • Redemption Elder
  • Trade Count: (+7)
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8597
    • -
    • East Central Region
Re: Protection of Angels
« Reply #103 on: July 16, 2009, 01:15:25 PM »
0
Especially with persistent people such as yourself.  :P
That was kind of you to choose that description instead of "annoyingly stubborn" :)

Now if you rule that the EC's go wherever the Fortress goes, then I will buy that similar to the way that dorthy went to the land of Oz because she was in the house that went to Oz
But the "new" REG quote indicates that the protection would protect "from the effect" of shuffling of the game rule.

Offline frisian9

  • Official Playtester
  • Tournament Host
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • *****
  • Posts: 1225
  • So let it be written, so let it be done.
    • Pittsbugh Playgroup
Re: Protection of Angels
« Reply #104 on: July 16, 2009, 09:40:40 PM »
0
The REG also states that when a card (other than a site with Lost Souls in it) is discarded that the contents are discarded in it. We went through this many years ago, and that should be how the REG should be interpretted. Perhaps the wording isn't clear.

The protect SA on Goshen really does not apply to characters since they aren't being targeted - Goshen is being targetted and it isn't protected. This has everything to do with (1) the fortress is being discarded (2) the characters are in it, and (3) character cards go to the discard pile with the fortress.

Did I fall asleep at some point and miss a new ruling in the past year? Are players really taking characters out of Goshen and putting them in territory when ANB is played?

Mike
----------------------------------------------------------
Keeper of the REG (www.redemptionreg.com

Offline frisian9

  • Official Playtester
  • Tournament Host
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • *****
  • Posts: 1225
  • So let it be written, so let it be done.
    • Pittsbugh Playgroup
Re: Protection of Angels
« Reply #105 on: July 16, 2009, 09:45:01 PM »
0
----------------------------------------------------------
Keeper of the REG (www.redemptionreg.com

Offline Prof Underwood

  • Redemption Elder
  • Trade Count: (+7)
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8597
    • -
    • East Central Region
Re: Protection of Angels
« Reply #106 on: July 16, 2009, 11:58:09 PM »
0
The REG also states that when a card (other than a site with Lost Souls in it) is discarded that the contents are discarded in it. We went through this many years ago, and that should be how the REG should be interpretted. Perhaps the wording isn't clear.
The problem here is that the REG quote that you pointed to in your last post states that ECs in KotW do NOT follow KotW if it is discarded, but return to territory instead.

Did I fall asleep at some point and miss a new ruling in the past year? Are players really taking characters out of Goshen and putting them in territory when ANB is played?
Don't worry, I think that everyone is still shuffling GCs in Goshen and ECs in KotW when people play ANB.  But it does seem inconsistent with the old ruling mentioned above.  And it also seems inconsistent with the new REG definition that Tim just posted that would save Sadducees from the game rule causing a discard effect.

 


SimplePortal 2.3.3 © 2008-2010, SimplePortal