Author Topic: cov of eden question (Read 3389 times)

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.

Minister Polarius · « **Reply #1 on:** May 10, 2011, 11:49:30 PM »

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.

RTSmaniac · « **Reply #2 on:** May 10, 2011, 11:49:54 PM »

He's discarded.

Minister Polarius · « **Reply #3 on:** May 10, 2011, 11:51:20 PM »

No, he's not. Covenant with Eden protects him from removal.

RTSmaniac · « **Reply #4 on:** May 10, 2011, 11:52:26 PM »

wouldnt it turn Achans Sin into Interrupt and Discard?

browarod · « **Reply #5 on:** May 10, 2011, 11:55:40 PM »

I was going to say he is protected, but then I remembered that it's an interrupt, so I agree with RTSM.

Minister Polarius · « **Reply #6 on:** May 11, 2011, 12:02:40 AM »

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.

Kor · « **Reply #7 on:** May 11, 2011, 12:13:52 AM »

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.

Isildur · « **Reply #8 on:** May 11, 2011, 12:26:44 AM »

Forgot about the interupt but assuming he is getting removed by another card then he is protected. Thats all I wanted to know.

Minister Polarius · « **Reply #9 on:** May 11, 2011, 03:07:06 AM »

The interrupt doesn't matter. Are my posts invisible?

Kor · « **Reply #10 on:** May 11, 2011, 12:38:54 PM »

Quote from: Minister Polarius on May 11, 2011, 03:07:06 AM

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.

browarod · « **Reply #11 on:** May 11, 2011, 12:40:03 PM »

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.

Minister Polarius · « **Reply #12 on:** May 11, 2011, 12:52:14 PM »

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.

browarod · « **Reply #13 on:** May 11, 2011, 01:02:36 PM »

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?

galadgawyn · « **Reply #14 on:** May 11, 2011, 02:10:29 PM »

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?

Professoralstad · « **Reply #15 on:** May 11, 2011, 02:34:05 PM »

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.

browarod · « **Reply #16 on:** May 11, 2011, 03:21:33 PM »

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.

Minister Polarius · « **Reply #17 on:** May 11, 2011, 03:32:42 PM »

"Heroes cannot be removed from the game." That's a protect ability.

browarod · « **Reply #18 on:** May 11, 2011, 03:46:58 PM »

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.

Minister Polarius · « **Reply #19 on:** May 12, 2011, 01:12:14 PM »

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.

browarod · « **Reply #20 on:** May 12, 2011, 01:34:30 PM »

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).

Minister Polarius · « **Reply #21 on:** May 12, 2011, 08:40:30 PM »

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.

browarod · « **Reply #22 on:** May 12, 2011, 10:32:30 PM »

Sounds like a plan. Just hope we don't have to wait long, lol.

Minister Polarius · « **Reply #23 on:** May 13, 2011, 02:18:22 AM »

Right, keep dreaming :p

browarod · « **Reply #24 on:** May 13, 2011, 04:19:41 PM »

I like dreams. They let you do things and go places you couldn't do/go in real life.

News:

Author Topic: cov of eden question (Read 3389 times)

browarod

browarod

browarod

browarod

browarod

browarod

browarod

browarod