Cactus Game Design Message Boards

I think it's one of those letter of the word rulings...it has to say "protect" on the evil card to be negated. Same as "places" cannot be used for high places. It has to say "place". Protect is the intention of immunity, but verbatim is not the same thing.

I disagree. The quote from Bryon is quite important, although four years old. Habbakuk says "Negate protect abilities" and that list is a list of "protect abilities."

I understand the difference, but that 2006 quote from Bryon seems to say otherwise. Just like "take a hero prisoner" is a "capture ability," even though it does not actually say "capture." Should we just disregard that old quote as a clarification, rather than a list of "protect abilities" like it says?

I understand the difference, but that 2006 quote from Bryon seems to say otherwise.

You need to provide the context for that list.  Look at the How to Play for protect:

Protect allows cards to be unaffected by specified special abilities

A lone hero is not a special ability, so "immune to lone Heroes" is not a protect ability.  Additionally, if immune and protect were the same thing, they would not have completely different sections in the REG.

Quote from: YourMathTeacher on July 15, 2010, 01:32:39 PM

I understand the difference, but that 2006 quote from Bryon seems to say otherwise.

You need to provide the context for that list.  Look at the How to Play for protect:

Quote

Protect allows cards to be unaffected by specified special abilities

A lone hero is not a special ability, so "immune to lone Heroes" is not a protect ability.  Additionally, if immune and protect were the same thing, they would not have completely different sections in the REG.

There it is. I was trying to remember how that list was misleading. so Immune to discard = protected from discard, but immune to lone heroes =/= protected from lone heroes (in the sense that it's a protect ability).

When Habakkuk was released I asked if he negates 'immune' abilities.  The answer was a clear - "no".  For more on that topic look here.

There's a lot of questions in this scenario.  These are my thoughts on them:

1 - Does Hab negate Garrison's immunity?
       a) no because Garrison's SA doesn't have the word "protect"
       b) no because immunity to characters isn't a "protect ability"
       c) yes because immunity is a kind of protection
I like option c).  Immunity seems like protection and therefore  seems like it should be negated.  What is the purpose of having Protection and Immunity being 2 different sections in the REG anyway?  Why isn't immunity simply a subcategory of protection?  And as for the specific word "protect", don't the cards that require specific words on cards actually have the word in quotes, or say "cards with the word ..."?

2 - Does Hab discard Garrison after the battle if the immunity is not negated?
       a) no because Garrison's immunity protects him from being targeted when Hab's SA activates
       b) no because the discard happens before the phase is totally over so the immunity is still active
       c) yes because the targeting doesn't happen until after battle when the protection is over
I like option b).  It seems like triggered effects can pick their target AFTER the trigger happens.  However, discarding the characters that lose in a battle is "battle resolution" and is therefore still during the "Battle Phase".  If Garrison's immunity is NOT negated, then it would still be active throughout that phase and would protect him from discard.  As an aside, "after this battle" should not mean in the Discard Phase, because there could be more than 1 battle in a Battle Phase.

3 - Does ANB shuffle Garrison after the battle if the immunity is not negated?
       a) no because Garrison's immunity protects him from being targeted by ANB when it activates
       b) no because Garrison's immunity still protects him when he returns to territory after Hab is shuffled
       c) yes because after Hab is shuffled and Garrison returns to territory, he isn't protected anymore
Again, my thinking is similar to question #2.  Even if Garrison returns to territory (due to Hab being shuffled away) before ANB starts shuffling away stuff in the territories, I still think his immunity is active until the end of the Battle Phase if it were never negated.

4 - How does Chariot of Fire work?
       a) only heroes in the discard pile before the end of the battle are shuffled back into draw pile
       b) all heroes including those who die at the end of the battle are shuffled back into draw pile
I don't think that "Following your rescue attempt" would have to mean "During you Upkeep Phase".  I'm actually thinking that it should not.  When someone plays Ambush the City, then their rescue attempt finishes in the middle of their Battle Phase, and they still have an entire other battle challenge to finish.  However, I do think that the trigger would go off at the end of Battle Resolution, and therefore I agree with the status quo ruling of b).

You are immune to characters and protected from effects.  You cannot be protected from King David and you cannot be immune to Stan's Seat.  They function differently, and always have.

so what about these cards then?

Shield of Faith (Kings)
Type: Hero Enh. • Brigade: Multicolor • Ability: 3 / 4 • Class: None • Special Ability: Hero is immune to all evil enhancements depicting weapons. • Identifiers: NT, Depicts a Weapon • Verse: Ephesians 6:16 • Availability: Kings booster packs (Ultra Rare)

Belt of Truth (Warriors)
Type: Hero Enh. • Brigade: Multicolor • Ability: 3 / 4 • Class: None • Special Ability: Hero is immune to Lies. • Identifiers: None • Verse: Ephesians 6:14 • Availability: Warriors booster packs (Ultra Rare)

Helmet of Salvation (Warriors)
Type: Hero Enh. • Brigade: Multicolor • Ability: 3 / 4 • Class: None • Special Ability: Hero is immune to Confusion. • Identifiers: None • Verse: Ephesians 6:17-18 • Availability: Warriors booster packs (Ultra Rare)

so what about these cards then?
Shield of Faith (Kings)...Special Ability: Hero is immune to all evil enhancements depicting weapons.
Belt of Truth (Warriors)...Special Ability: Hero is immune to Lies.
Helmet of Salvation (Warriors)...Special Ability: Hero is immune to Confusion

From the rules:

RULEBOOK CLARIFICATIONS:
All of the following phrases are PROTECT abilities:
...Immune to ...

My previous explanation in this thread:

When the REG equates "immune to" with a protect function, it is still looking at the effects of the cards, e.g. the old Helmet of Salvation says "Hero is immune to Confusion", meaning "Protect Hero from the effect of Confusion".

This just seems like an arbitrary distinction that is even contradicted by several cards (as pointed out by MKC).

Cards that in almost every case are almost a decade old and far predate our efforts to clean up the language.  I don't think the clean structure of the abilities should be punished for the fact that we try to keep the old cards intact with Play As language.

I'm just not sure that we really need to have this arbitrary distinction between "immune" and "protect".

Let's assume your point, then, that the distinction between the two is arbitrary.

I rescue with a Hero that is protected from removal.  You block with Nadab and Abihu together.  Consider the scenarios if you do and do not use Abihu's ability.

Now instead, I rescue with a Hero that is immune to gray brigade.  You block with the same combo.  Do the scenarios play out the same way?  If not, then the distinction is real and not arbitrary.

Right, that scenario is the same. However, Schaef said to apply both using and not using the remove ability - In that case two different things happen - In the first if the ability is not used, Nadab and Abihu can play say - Deluge of Rain and kill the hero. In the second if Deluge is played then the hero is not killed.

Actually I think that the average person playing those cards would do the same thing both times.

Well, then, they would be playing the game completely wrong, because a protected Hero I can still play other cards against, and for example capture him with Snare.  With an immune Hero, NOTHING played on those characters would work against that Hero, even if they were able to use Enhancements of another color.

This is the distinction I think you fail to realize: protect narrowly focuses on the effects of the specific cards, but they can protect any type of card from any type of card.  Immune has broader implications as to what cannot affect the immune character, but most of that benefit comes in the Field of Battle, wherein immunity also plays a role in determining the state of the battle.

Protect was brought into use in this specific way for a specific reason: immunity as it works does not provide a good framework for what we want protect to do.  Their effects are similar in many ways but their function and targets are different.

In case 1 the hero is protected from REMOVAL whereas in case 2 they are immune to GREY BRIGADE.

I chose two realistic examples that I am certain you could find on an existing card.  Either way, protection from gray brigade Evil Characters would not protect you from their Enhancements, but immunity to gray ECs would.  Moreover, protection from gray brigade would not protect you from pale green Enhancements played on them, but immunity to gray brigade would.

It appears to me that the only difference between immunity is that one is about abilities and one is about characters

I did not spend considerable effort outlining numerous differences only to have it all tossed out the window for "oh, they just target different things"

After rereading Schaef's definitions of ignore an immune I do see more of a difference.

A card that says "Protect X from Y Characters" would not protect them from the enhancements played on them, (In fact it would be almost useless because all it really protects from is character abilities)

Whereas "X is immune to Y characters" would "protect" a character from all enhancements played on them.

I'm sorry for not really reading the definitions you said earlier, I was just talking about your example and I wasn't throwing it away.

However I still find it strange that Protection of Angels doesn't protect against numbers.