Cactus Game Design Message Boards
Redemption® Collectible Trading Card Game HQ => Official Rules & Errata => Ruling Questions => Topic started by: Isildur on May 10, 2011, 11:47:22 PM
-
Ok so say I have Cov of Eden out and I ra with Enoch. Enoch gets hit by Achans sin. Does he get removed due to him preventing or what ever cov of edens discard? or is he protected from remove due to eden and then isnt discarded?
Also is the REG right on the errata play as thing for enoch?
Enoch (Pa)
Type: Hero Char. • Brigade: White • Ability: 7 / 8 • Class: None • Special Ability: Enoch may be removed from the game, but is prevented from being discarded. • Errata: Protect Enoch from discard.
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.
-
The play-as is correct on Enoch, the errata-disguised-as-play-as on CoE is not. The play-as on CoE should read: "Protect all characters from removal from the game. If a character would be removed from the game, Discard character instead." Covenant with Eden stops Acahn's Sin.
-
He's discarded.
-
No, he's not. Covenant with Eden protects him from removal.
-
wouldnt it turn Achans Sin into Interrupt and Discard?
-
I was going to say he is protected, but then I remembered that it's an interrupt, so I agree with RTSM.
-
No. Covenant of Eden may have the distinction of being the worst worded card in redemption (see what I did there?). The only time the "instead" ability would ever matter is if a card removed a character from the game regardless of protection or if there were a card that negated protect abilities on Artifacts.
Achan's Sin ITB's and tries to remove Enoch from the game, but CoE protects him from removal so it does nothing.
If the first sentence of CoE were being Negated but not the second, then Enoch would be Discarded because the removal would be turned into discard under the interrupt umbrella.
-
Looking at the play as for Covanent of Eden, I think would activate during the interrupt when the Achan's Sin is attempting to remove Enoch and therefore Enoch would be discarded.
-
Forgot about the interupt but assuming he is getting removed by another card then he is protected. Thats all I wanted to know.
-
The interrupt doesn't matter. Are my posts invisible?
-
The interrupt doesn't matter. Are my posts invisible?
I can read your posts but covenant of eden's ability is straight from the REG. I don't see how you can just say the play as is "not correct." Unless you know of something more recent that we're missing? Covenant of eden does NOT protect characters from being removed from the game.
-
Without elder agreement to your claims, the REG is all we have to go on for CoE's ability. As it is worded, the removal would be insteaded to a discard and Enoch would be discarded since his protection would be being interrupted. That is how I would rule it if it came up at a tourney.
-
Then your ruling would be wrong. It is a standing elder policy that REG "Play As" that is actually errata is to be disregarded. Only errata classified as errata can change the SA on a card.
-
And based on the SA on the card, removals are insteaded to discard. When did I say it had anything to do with the play as?
-
You're right that the card insteads removals to discards but you are missing that the card also protects characters from removal. There really is no other way to interpret "No character may be removed from the game". That is a clear ability on the card and for it to not have that ability requires errata which should never happen. Since when do they errata normal abilities besides ones they strongly dislike?
As an aside, what if Cov of Eden is played as an enhancement? When the defense interrupts the protection and removes the cards, does Cov of Eden's instead then kick in? or does the instead have to be in place before the removal and not be interrupted?
-
Here's how I see it:
Emoch is protected from discard. This means that if Covenant with Eden is active, it cannot target Enoch for discard. It also protects Enoch from removal from the game. However, Achan's Sin interrupts Enoch's protection from discard, and tries to target him for removal; which triggers CoE, which can target him for discard while his ability is interrupted.
Of course, the definition of protect in Redemption is that protected characters cannot be targeted by a SA they are protected from. So it almost seems to me that the second sentence of CoE does nothing (unless protect abilities are negated, which would lead to further questions). So CoE definitely needs a revised Play As (possibly errata, but not necessarily, as the intent of the card is pretty clear) to say the following: "Protect characters from removal from the game. If a character would be targeted for removal from the game without this protection, discard it instead." It's super clunky, but as Pol said, CoE's original text is probably the worst possible way that one could word a special ability ( ;)).
So if I had to rule it, I might assume my proposed Play As and allow the discard, but I would do so with the knowledge that there is a legitimate case to be made that as is CoE basically does nothing more than protect characters from removal.
-
Why are you treating the instead sentence as a separate ability from the "protect" sentence? It seems more like one ability across two sentences than two separate abilities, imho.
-
"Heroes cannot be removed from the game." That's a protect ability.
-
Except that the next sentence explains instead, so it can't be a protect since it says what to do instead of removing from the game. You're taking the ability in pieces, I'm taking it as a whole. I'm all for top down rulings about protect and prevent and restrict and whatnot, but not at the cost of sacrificing clarity. The card says that, rather than being removed from play, cards are discarded. I don't see why it can't be left as an instead rather than assigning it some arbitrary play as or errata to make the second sentence useless by assuming about the first sentence.
-
No, you're the one assigning arbitrary designations. "Heroes cannot be removed from the game" is a Protect ability. "Instead Discard the character targeted for removal" is an instead ability. We don't change mistakes to how cards were written v. how they were intended unless official errata is issued, and for this card it has not been.
Timothy was meant to not be able to enter battle unless he was banded in, but he was written to ignore himself once he entered battle without being banded in. Older cards (usually before Kings) often do unintended things because of the way they were written before wording got more standardized. That doesn't mean you play it how it was probably intended to be written, you play it how it's written.
-
I AM playing it how it's written, that's what I'm trying to say. You're assigning new terminology to old cards, not me. The card says that things can't be removed and anything that would be removed is instead discarded. So Eden + Achan's Sin would interrupt the battle and discard all cards in battle. That's how it's written, that's how I would interpret it based on grammatical rules, that's how I would rule it. If the card does something other than what is written on it (like you're claiming), then perhaps it DOES need an errata.
I guess I'm just wondering why a card that has no official errata is being treated as doing something other than what the card actually says (or fully says, whichever is the case).
-
Nothing more can be accomplished between us going back and forth. My view is the one most consistent with rulings on old card wording, but the PTB could decide to go the other way on this one. Now we just wait for the ruling.
-
Sounds like a plan. Just hope we don't have to wait long, lol. :P
-
Right, keep dreaming :p
-
I like dreams. They let you do things and go places you couldn't do/go in real life.
-
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?
-
They're the exact same, actually, DoN just has better original wording so the play-as runs more smoothly. The wording on DoN says "Discard one active Artifact in play." That's an ability. Then it says "Artifact's ability is negated." To someone with a poor understanding of how English grammar works it may sound like it could Negate the artifact even if it weren't Discarded, but that's just not the case.
DoN and CoE both have two sentences. DoN and CoE both have two abilities. Where's the beef?
-
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.
-
+1 Hobbit and Polarius
-
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?
-
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?
I think he's more referring to something like how it's played against Lampstand. Because it's two seperate abilities, and the discard ability comes first, Lampstand cannot be negated by DoN.
-
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.