Cactus Game Design Message Boards

does placing destructive sin on a hero count as harming that hero or as a negative effect to that hero?

but i thought that negating a character's ability didn't count as harm, and that would fall under targeting a character of a different alignment

Hey,

A place ability targets the cards that are to be placed. If a card is placed on another card, the underlying card is not targeted by the place ability.

So the placing of destructive sin on a hero does not target the hero it is placed on and thus does not harm the hero it is placed on. 

Tschow,

Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly

I agree with Tim #2. Job has always been able to go to D&A if he gets hit by DS.

prepositional phrases are unnecessary.

That's so not true *English minor raves*. "Place this card" doesn't make sense in English grammar or in Redemption terminology, so the prepositional phrase is necessary to determine where, or on what, you're placing the card. Whether or not that means it targets the Hero, I don't know, but the prepositional phrase is absolutely necessary. Though, considering DS says "that hero" in the second part of its ability, I don't see how it could NOT target the Hero, otherwise there would be no "that hero".

Either way, the point is moot for DS because as soon as it starts to negate the ability (which is immediately upon placing it) it's harming the hero.

And negates never target cards. They target abilities. Else, there could never, ever, ever be a counter to something that protected itself from opponents' cards (like Caesarea Phillipi). I don't think anyone wants that.

I know it targets abilities, but abilities are part of a card (unless "Anatomy of a Card" in the REG is wrong) so why does negating an ability not count as harm? Does "protection from opponents" share the same definition as "harm" in terms of what triggers it? If not, then there isn't a problem with my interpretation. If it does, then I ask why?

Protect X from Y means that X cannot be targeted by Y. So if a negate targeted the card with the ability, then for example, Thaddeus' enhancements would be CBN vs. a qualifying EC, CP would be indestructible, etc. It's a possibly confusing but definitely necessary distinction.

I know they're distinct, I just don't see why they can't still be distinct while treating negating as harm. Am I missing something?

I don't think there's anything in the rules that says protection stops harm (if said harm can get around targeting the card as a whole), so would it really be detrimental to treat negating an ability as harm but still get around protection? I mean, if we're talking real life and my "special ability" is, say, preaching, I would definitely consider it harm if you taped my mouth shut and prevented (negated) me from speaking.

The issue is that harm can only happen when a card of a different alignment targets a card. Heroes can negate themselves or other heroes (playing blessings, magnificat, banding to an FBTN hero, etc.). Thus.negating cant be harm unless we change the definition. I don't see that as being necessary.

I realized that you are correct on that point after posting. Sorry about that.

The point still stands though that harm means a card is being targeted by a card with a different alignment. Protect means a card can't be targeted. Thus protect means a card can't be harmed. That is the rule, and has been for quite awhile. There's nothing broken about it, so I don't really know why anything needs to be changed.

I agree it is kind of an odd concept, however, it helps to think of targets as cards that you do things to. You discard a Fortress, capture a Hero, rescue a Lost Soul, place a card, etc. When you place something ON a card, it's like setting the table. You are not actively doing anything to the table by setting a plate on it, you are only actively doing something to the plate.

I agree it is kind of an odd concept, however, it helps to think of targets as cards that you do things to. You discard a Fortress, capture a Hero, rescue a Lost Soul, place a card, etc. When you place something ON a card, it's like setting the table. You are not actively doing anything to the table by setting a plate on it, you are only actively doing something to the plate.

But when you set a table you are doing something to it, you cover it with a table cloth, occupy some of its surface area,  possibly leave residue behind.  Those are actions performed to the table.  Perhaps a bad analogy.  But I could have sworn I saw a ruling the Destructive Sin  (TP)  sent Job  (Pi) to Dust and Ashes  (Di)

did we ever come to a final verdict on this?

You have one elder (Sir Nobody) offering  a ruling. You have a second (Professoralstad) agreeing and explaining/defending the ruling. That seems like a final verdict to me--unless another elder cares to chime in in dissent.

Actually, read the explanation of elders again.

Thanks for the advice, Pol. I didn't realize how woefully unlearned I was about the process by which rulings are made.

Sorry for jumping the gun, sepjazzwarrior. You can have a good degree of confidence that the ruling will be as stated and confirmed on this thread.