Author Topic: Birth Foretold/Protect Question (Read 1891 times)

soul seeker · « **on:** November 02, 2012, 10:12:47 AM »

Before I ask, this is what my research has produced.
Birth Foretold is a protect card. Protect is listed in the Reg under Ongoing abilities. In fact, the exact quote states that, "All protect abilities are ongoing."
According to my understanding (which could be flawed), Ongoing abilities take constant checks to see if conditions are met because the ability is not completed until the phase (or turn in the case of Birth Foretold) is over.

So, here is what happened:
Birth Foretold is played while Samson is in hand and Son of God is in deck. Birth Foretold grants protection status to all cards with those names on it for the entire turn. Son of God is searched out and put into hand. Now, Son of God and Samson are in hand. A battle was initiated when Angel Under the Oak enters and then switches for Samson and puts him into battle.

Is Samson protected by Birth Foretold?

Argument for protection: Birth Foretold is a protect which is an ongoing ability. Samson becomes targetable when he is placed into battle. Birth Foretold's ongoing ability "checks" to see if Samson meets the protect conditions (which he does) therefore BF then targets Samson and protects him.

Argument against protection: One, Birth Foretold did not search for Samson thus the protection targets Son of God only. Two, Birth Foretold was played while Samson was not in a targetable place (in hand) and therefore is not protected.

Is Samson protected in the above situation?

Drrek · « **Reply #1 on:** November 02, 2012, 10:45:57 AM »

I'd say it does protect Samson in battle.

Quote from: soul seeker on November 02, 2012, 10:12:47 AM

Argument against protection: One, Birth Foretold did not search for Samson thus the protection targets Son of God only.

This is a blatantly wrong argument. There is no clause that states you have to have searched for the card, and it specifically says to protect "Cards with those titles." Everything there refers to protecting ALL cards with the titles Isaac, John the Baptist, Samson, and Son of God, not just the ones you searched for. You could even search you deck, find nothing and still protect a Samson/John the Baptist/Isaac you wanted to enter battle with.

As for the second argument, I'd stay it still protects him, since protection is an ongoing ability, so it would update to protect Samson when he enters play.

Also if it didn't protect him because of the second argument, you could always just play Samson then immediately play birth foretold anyway.

soul seeker · « **Reply #2 on:** November 02, 2012, 10:54:02 AM »

With AUTO, you are right...but the issue is important to consider because of Angel with the Secret Name (which is pretty much in every deck with Samson).

Josh · « **Reply #3 on:** November 02, 2012, 12:10:23 PM »

I agree with Drrek. Samson is protected because BF's protection is not dependent on the search; they are separate abilities. And Samson doesn't need to be in play because protection is always "autochecking" for the targets it is protecting.

As another example, when Abigail is in battle she is protecting lost souls from evil cards. If she is blocked by Proud Pharisee, who draws 2 (in the process putting 3 more lost souls in play) and then plays Just a Hireling, those 3 new LS still cannot be targeted by Just a Hireling, since Abigail's protect ability automatically targets them upon entering play.

Redoubter · « **Reply #4 on:** November 02, 2012, 09:39:19 PM »

I completely agree that those cards are protected when they come into play, and you can see the more detailed arguments for that case in my posts here. Though, that thread never ended definitively, so I will bump it and reference this thread as well.

However, I have heard it argued before that those cards are only protected when not in hand, deck, or discard. Those arguing that point state that the cards have no actual 'name' while in those locations, and so you could Mayhem them away, for instance. I disagree with that, as you can search for them by name in those locations, but that is definitely another discussion to have.

Josh · « **Reply #5 on:** November 03, 2012, 03:46:21 PM »

Quote from: Redoubter on November 02, 2012, 09:39:19 PM

However, I have heard it argued before that those cards are only protected when not in hand, deck, or discard. Those arguing that point state that the cards have no actual 'name' while in those locations, and so you could Mayhem them away, for instance. I disagree with that, as you can search for them by name in those locations, but that is definitely another discussion to have.

I think the reasoning was "protection (like all abilities) defaults to play". So Birth Foretold is played, player searches for Son of God, puts in hand. Opponent plays Mayhem. Son of God is shuffled, because Birth Foretold's protection defaults to play and SoG is not in play.

If Birth Foretold said "Protect those cards from opponent's cards while in play, deck or hand" or something like that, then yes, Mayhem could not shuffle SoG in hand because SoG would be protected.

Minister Polarius · « **Reply #6 on:** November 03, 2012, 04:09:06 PM »

That's not the question here. The question is whether a Samson that was in hand when BF was played would fall under its protection once played. The answer is yes, but there may be something else going on in this thread I'm not picking up on.

Josh · « **Reply #7 on:** November 03, 2012, 04:22:12 PM »

Quote from: Minister Polarius on November 03, 2012, 04:09:06 PM

That's not the question here. The question is whether a Samson that was in hand when BF was played would fall under its protection once played. The answer is yes, but there may be something else going on in this thread I'm not picking up on.

I was not addressing the original OP, I was addressing Redoubter's last post. He believes that protection from BF ought to extend to hand and deck (hence my SoG/Mayhem example). I was just explaining the reasoning behind SoG not being protected.

Minister Polarius · « **Reply #8 on:** November 03, 2012, 04:31:51 PM »

Oh, I see. There's no weight to that, the "default to play" rule is very clear.

Redoubter · « **Reply #9 on:** November 05, 2012, 07:18:35 PM »

That's right, it was the default to play rule, which is correct. I was misremembering the argument against the protection in those locations, thanks for clarifying it

Also glad to see that you seem to agree with me now on the nature of protection, Pol

megamanlan · « **Reply #10 on:** November 05, 2012, 07:59:07 PM »

Quote from: jmhartz on November 03, 2012, 03:46:21 PM

Quote from: Redoubter on November 02, 2012, 09:39:19 PM
However, I have heard it argued before that those cards are only protected when not in hand, deck, or discard. Those arguing that point state that the cards have no actual 'name' while in those locations, and so you could Mayhem them away, for instance. I disagree with that, as you can search for them by name in those locations, but that is definitely another discussion to have.

I think the reasoning was "protection (like all abilities) defaults to play". So Birth Foretold is played, player searches for Son of God, puts in hand. Opponent plays Mayhem. Son of God is shuffled, because Birth Foretold's protection defaults to play and SoG is not in play.

If Birth Foretold said "Protect those cards from opponent's cards while in play, deck or hand" or something like that, then yes, Mayhem could not shuffle SoG in hand because SoG would be protected.

If I remember correctly, that is wrong. Most abilities default to play. Protect is the exemption since you cannot Discard Gideon from Deck if AuTO was in battle. And Birth Foretold was made to counter Mayhem (and it does quite well) The example you gave is wrong. I'm pretty sure Redoubter disagrees, but it wouldn't be the first time we've disagreed and most likely wont be the last either.

As for the question here, Samson is protected for the reasons that others already listed. And Protect is ongoing and should be treated as such.

Redoubter · « **Reply #11 on:** November 05, 2012, 08:06:10 PM »

Quote from: megamanlan on November 05, 2012, 07:59:07 PM

If I remember correctly, that is wrong. Most abilities default to play. Protect is the exemption since you cannot Discard Gideon from Deck if AuTO was in battle. And Birth Foretold was made to counter Mayhem (and it does quite well) The example you gave is wrong. I'm pretty sure Redoubter disagrees, but it wouldn't be the first time we've disagreed and most likely wont be the last either.

No, I held the position you just pointed out, but (just like last time I had this discussion) I was proven wrong. The situations you gave all default to play, because they do not specify. A Gideon in deck is not protected by AuTO, BF does not counter Mayhem, and so on. They do not specify locations, and therefore they default to play. Hand and deck are not in play. I was incorrect to bring up searching, as those do specify a location if they are able to search those locations by card name. If they didn't, those cards would default to play as well.

Great example of both is AuTO. He specifically can search areas not in play for specific cards. However, his protection only defaults to play, because it does not specify a location.

In short, you can affect cards protected by AuTO and BF while they are not in play. To say otherwise has no weight, as Pol pointed out. Protection has no exemption in terms of 'default to play', as no ability has that exemption. It is the default unless otherwise stated.

megamanlan · « **Reply #12 on:** November 05, 2012, 08:26:31 PM »

Then there really is no Protection of SoG because it really can't 'enter play' (or at least in a way that it could be protected) and that doesn't make sense since that was brought up before (with Mayhem and Escape to Egypt) and it was ruled a different way... And that would re-rule Lampstand again, since 'Not in Battle' doesn't allow for out of play.

Redoubter · « **Reply #13 on:** November 05, 2012, 08:41:41 PM »

Quote from: megamanlan on November 05, 2012, 08:26:31 PM

Then there really is no Protection of SoG because it really can't 'enter play' (or at least in a way that it could be protected) and that doesn't make sense since that was brought up before (with Mayhem and Escape to Egypt) and it was ruled a different way... And that would re-rule Lampstand again, since 'Not in Battle' doesn't allow for out of play.

First, let's address this: "Not in battle" =/= "Not in play"

In battle = Cards in the field of battle.
Not in battle = "Several Redemption® cards contain special abilities that refer to cards that are “not in battle”. Cards "not in battle" are cards found in (1) territories, (2) set aside areas, and (3) Lands of Redemption." - Direct quote from the new REG.

In play = "In Play means within the Field of Play. Cards that are considered in play include cards in territories and cards in any main battle or side battle that hasn’t been set-aside by a special ability. Abilities that don’t specify where their targets must be located by default can only target cards in play." - Direct quote from the new REG.
Not in play = Everywhere else.

Also note that "in play" specifies that all abilities that do not specify default to cards in play.

Hopefully that resolves all of those problems you thought there were with the ruling. And while the particular protection of SoG may not make sense, it protects any of those cards in play. To word it differently to exclude SoG from the in-play protection would have been much wordier. Plus the obligatory "abilities do not have to make sense to work as written".

Josh · « **Reply #14 on:** November 08, 2012, 12:24:53 PM »

Quote from: megamanlan on November 05, 2012, 08:26:31 PM

Then there really is no Protection of SoG because it really can't 'enter play' (or at least in a way that it could be protected) and that doesn't make sense since that was brought up before (with Mayhem and Escape to Egypt) and it was ruled a different way... And that would re-rule Lampstand again, since 'Not in Battle' doesn't allow for out of play.

I'm glad you brought up Lampstand, because the ruling on Lampstand/Mayhem is a perfect example of why Birth Foretold works the way it does.

Lampstand does not specify where the targets of its protection are, so it defaults to play. Your hand is not in play, so therefore Lampstand does not protect cards in your hand from Mayhem.

Similarly, BF does not specifiy where the targets of its protection are, so it defaults to play. SoG in your hand is not in play, so it is not protected. If you used BF to search for SoG in battle, and then your opponent played High Priest's Plot, they could discard SoG.

Also, if BF protected SoG in hand, that would actually not be a counter to Mayhem. Mayhem is worded as cost-benefit, so you only draw 6 if you also shuffled in your hand. If SoG was protected, you would shuffle all but SoG and draw no cards. I'm certain that would almost always be a disadvantage to shuffling your whole hand (SoG included) but drawing a full 6 cards.

browarod · « **Reply #15 on:** November 08, 2012, 02:00:52 PM »

Quote from: jmhartz on November 08, 2012, 12:24:53 PM

Lampstand does not specify where the targets of its protection are, so it defaults to play. Your hand is not in play, so therefore Lampstand does not protect cards in your hand from Mayhem.

That's really not accurate and isn't a comparison you should try to make. Lampstand does specify where the protection targets (cards "not in battle") and Lampstand does protect cards in 2 locations that are not "in play" (set aside and Land of Redemption). The only similarity relating to the current discussion between Lampstand's protect and BF's protect is that neither protects your hand.

Cactus Game Design Message Boards

News:

Author Topic: Birth Foretold/Protect Question (Read 1891 times)

soul seeker

Birth Foretold/Protect Question

Drrek

Re: Birth Foretold/Protect Question

soul seeker

Re: Birth Foretold/Protect Question

Josh

Re: Birth Foretold/Protect Question

Redoubter

Re: Birth Foretold/Protect Question

Josh

Re: Birth Foretold/Protect Question

Minister Polarius

Re: Birth Foretold/Protect Question

Josh

Re: Birth Foretold/Protect Question

Minister Polarius

Re: Birth Foretold/Protect Question

Redoubter

Re: Birth Foretold/Protect Question

megamanlan

Re: Birth Foretold/Protect Question

Redoubter

Re: Birth Foretold/Protect Question

megamanlan

Re: Birth Foretold/Protect Question

Redoubter

Re: Birth Foretold/Protect Question

Josh

Re: Birth Foretold/Protect Question

browarod

Re: Birth Foretold/Protect Question