Cactus Game Design Message Boards

I have to agree with Browarod here.

If the original card ONLY said: "No character may be removed from the game," then I would completely agree with Pol. However, it has the extra clause: "Instead discard the character targeted for removal." That's pretty cut and dry to me.

Its like DoN. That was poorly worded with two sentences, yet you acknowledge the presence of the 2nd sentence on that.

Type: Grim Reaper • Brigade: None • Ability: None • Class: None • Special Ability: Discard one active Artifact in play. Artifact's ability is negated. • Play As: Discard one Artifact to negate its special ability.

What makes one different from the other in your mind?

So what your saying Pol, is that coe protects characters from remove and since those characters can't be targeted by an opponent's remove card then there is no way for its text to discard the hero because he will never be under the status on being removed? if so then I agree, nice catch.

The thing I'm confused about is how both cards are split into two sentences originally, and they both have a play as that combines the two like they were intended.

You agree merging the two on DoN, but insist on splitting apart CoE. Why?

Covenant of Eden (Pa)
Type: Covenant • Brigade: Silver • Ability: 3 / 4 • Class: None • Special Ability: Use as an enhancement or an Artifact. No character may be removed from the game. Instead discard the character targeted for removal. • Play As: Use as an enhancement or an Artifact. If a character is being removed from the game, discard that character instead.


I have to agree with Pol's logic I think. Based on what he's said (that the protection from removal means that a character cannot be targeted for removal by the time the second ability kicks in), I've tried to pick it apart but as it stands, the second part of the ability is moot without an errata.