Cactus Game Design Message Boards
Redemption® Collectible Trading Card Game HQ => Official Rules & Errata => Ruling Questions => Topic started by: The M on April 12, 2012, 09:37:09 PM
-
In game.
Does it?
-
I'm pretty sure it protects from the discard on RBD. I also think the cards are revealed and put back instead of drawn, but I'm not entirely sure about that.
-
I'm pretty sure it protects from the discard on RBD. I also think the cards are revealed and put back instead of drawn, but I'm not entirely sure about that.
Not sure on the second part, but anything that protects cards in your deck from discard protects them from RBD's discard, from the recent ruling on instead.
-
Revealed LS's are put in play, and the other cards are put back on the deck.
-
Revealed LS's are put in play, and the other cards are put back on the deck.
Most interesting...and making of the sense :o How did that happen? I haven't seen much of that lately...
Very good, thank you for that :)
-
From my question on Draw Abilities that would be correct. RBD can't shoot them so they're not insteaded. But wouldn't they then go to their intended target?
-
From my question on Draw Abilities that would be correct. RBD can't shoot them so they're not insteaded. But wouldn't they then go to their intended target?
If you are asking why they don't go to hand after being revealed, its because RBD says cards that would be drawn are revealed and discarded instead. The draw is always insteaded (unless your deck is protected entirely from RBD by something like Simon the Zealot), so they are just revealed (lost souls go into play by the RBD ability) and then they go back because the draw ability was still insteaded.
-
From my question on Draw Abilities that would be correct. RBD can't shoot them so they're not insteaded. But wouldn't they then go to their intended target?
No because RDC only protects from the discard. the Instead still happens, since the ability isn't being protected, just the pile. So you go to draw but instead you have to reveal and discard. But you can't discard so you do what you can and just reveal.
-
Oh, I see. That makes sense then.
-
Revealed LS's are put in play, and the other cards are put back on the deck.
Wait a minute! We just had a big argument about this. I supported ruling it this way, but I was told, after a very lengthy discussion, that all the elders were in agreement on "Instead" working like, "if X would happen, do Y to undo/stop X from happening." Don't get me wrong, I am all for your solution, but I like contradictions even less.
-
Revealed LS's are put in play, and the other cards are put back on the deck.
Wait a minute! We just had a big argument about this. I supported ruling it this way, but I was told, after a very lengthy discussion, that all the elders were in agreement on "Instead" working like, "if X would happen, do Y to undo/stop X from happening." Don't get me wrong, I am all for your solution, but I like contradictions even less.
I'm not exactly sure what your complaint is.
-
There was just a big thread about this very question, and the end result (which I was told was consensus among elders--that's either a lie or a consensus can be reached without very prominent elders even knowing about it) was that 4DC would allow you to draw through RBD. Now an elder is saying that RBD stunts the draw.
-
There was just a big thread about this very question, and the end result (which I was told was consensus among elders--that's either a lie or a consensus can be reached without very prominent elders even knowing about it) was that 4DC would allow you to draw through RBD. Now an elder is saying that RBD stunts the draw.
I don't think that was ever said (though I could be wrong), I believe what was said was that Simon the Zealot lets you draw through RBD, because it completely protects the deck.
-
I was told Instead was functionally do X and if so, do not do Y. If you couldn't do all of X, the original ability carried out.
-
I was told Instead was functionally do X and if so, do not do Y. If you couldn't do all of X, the original ability carried out.
From what I can gather, the discard isn't a part of the instead, only the reveal is.
-
o_0
-
He has a a point the second part of the ability only tells you what do to with the revealed cards not instead discard them.
-
He has a a point the second part of the ability only tells you what do to with the revealed cards not instead discard them.
This, basically. I hadn't looked at it like this before, but from what I can see now, there are three separate things going on here. First, the cards drawn are, instead of being drawn, revealed, and that's the only part of the instead. Then a place ability (targeting any Lost Souls drawn), and then a discard ability (targeting non-Lost Souls). I'm not saying this is definitely how it is, but it can definitely be interpreted that way, especially since the place and discard abilities are in a different sentence than the instead.
-
It seems to me that the Discard is part of the reveal and therefore part of the instead, since without the reveal there can be no Discard, just as any search ability is part of a discard/tutor from deck ability since without the search there cannot be the other. I suppose I could see it the other way, but was that the reason for the good Professor's ruling?
-
It seems to me that the Discard is part of the reveal and therefore part of the instead, since without the reveal there can be no Discard, just as any search ability is part of a discard/tutor from deck ability since without the search there cannot be the other. I suppose I could see it the other way, but was that the reason for the good Professor's ruling?
Reveal and discard are separate, and one can happen even if the other is protected against. DoU has a discard an shuffle ability, but one is not dependent on the other, just like in this case. You can have a reveal without the discard by the wording on the card and game rule.
-
The instead results in the discard. if you can't discard you shouldn't be able to instead imo. It would be consistent with how they ruled when you instead a cost ability.
-
The instead results in the discard. if you can't discard you shouldn't be able to instead imo. It would be consistent with how they ruled when you instead a cost ability.
The problem with that idea is that you can still do the reveal off of the instead. It is only if everything the instead ability does is protected against that the original action occurs by the rules of instead.
You can still do something with the instead, so that much happens, basically.
-
The instead results in the discard. if you can't discard you shouldn't be able to instead imo. It would be consistent with how they ruled when you instead a cost ability.
Either way it's decided it's still consistent. The question is whether the discard/place part of RBD is part of the actual instead, and there's a pretty solid argument for both sides.
-
Revealing cards doesn't mean they go back to Deck. I would say that if the Discard is stopped, the ability doesn't give any provision to put it back on Deck.
-
Revealing cards doesn't mean they go back to Deck. I would say that if the Discard is stopped, the ability doesn't give any provision to put it back on Deck.
Actually, unless something else happens to them, revealed cards do go back to the deck. Revealed LS are put in play by the ability, but if they are protected from discard, then they go back to deck. This is how all reveals work.
-
Actually, that is what's being argued here. I don't agree that they go back to Deck.
-
Reveal =/= draw, when you reveal a card from your hand it then goes back to your hand. When you reveal cards from your deck it goes back to your deck.
-
If you check what's being argued here its that RBD would send those cards to Hand because they are not D/C'd.
-
and there is no reason for them to go to hand. The discard was prevented the reveal was not. The reveal still happens, but the revealed cards are protected from discard.
-
Revealing cards doesn't mean they go back to Deck. I would say that if the Discard is stopped, the ability doesn't give any provision to put it back on Deck.
Revealing cards doesn't mean anything, except that the cards are revealed. Reveal abilities are almost always followed by another action (place in your hand, place beneath deck, return to deck in any order, etc.) because Reveal abilities always only reveal. There is no precedent that they should be added to hand.
The discard ability of RBD doesn't give any provision to put cards protected from discard back on deck because that is ridiculous and unnecessary. Should every discard ability ever printed have such a clause? That would just add extra wording for a special ability when a game rule already exists to deal with it - when cards are revealed with no other action taken on them, they are returned to deck in the same order they were revealed.
-
Just want to make it clear I'm not trying to say what megaman is. I'm saying the SA is, "if drawn, instead (reveal, discard and place)," as opposed to "if drawn, reveal, (discard and place)."
-
That's what I am saying. The Instead doesn't complete so it does not Instead.
-
The instead DOES complete. the discard is not part of the instead it is an instruction on what to do with the revealed cards.
IF Draw INSTEAD reveal THEN discard
-
Which is the point of contention. I read the SA as "If Draw INSTEAD reveal and discard."
-
but you are not protected from the reveal with 4DC just the discard part so either way the reveal happens and is insteading the draw.
-
If my reading of 4DC is correct, that's not the case. If part of the cost of a cost/effect ability (which is the converse of what "instead" is in mechanics) is not paid, the effect does not happen.
-
Four-Drachma Coin says protect hand and deck from discard abilities, it mentions nothing of reveal. The only way what you're saying could be possible is if reveal and discard were not seperate but the ability on the card was a third type of reveal/discard ability. but if that were the case 4DC still would not protect because it protects from discard not reveal/discard
-
RBD attempts to instead a draw by revealing and discarding the same number of cards that would have been drawn. It succeeds in revealing them, but not Discarding them, so the price for the instead is not paid and the cards are then drawn.
-
it succeeded in instead the draw to a reveal. It doesnt negate the instead it just protects from discard.
-
The question is whether the discard/place ability is part of the instead or not, and if so, whether the interpretation of the rules that Pol has (apparently based on an Elder ruling from an earlier thread) is accurate or not. Personally, I disagree with Pol, however, I can see where he might be correct.
-
From your perspective, that is correct. From mine, it must both reveal and discard in order to successfully instead.
In case you are not aware, the mechanical definition of "instead" is "if X would happen, do Y to not do X." It may seem obvious, but for a long time the undertstanding was that "instead" abilities targeted the ability and changed it.
Therefore, if the discard is part of the instead, Y is not done, and therefore X is not not-done.
-
but what I'm saying is your are not negating the discard. When you play christian Martyr on joseph without negating his ability CM isn't negated you just cant target him. because you Can reveal the drawn cards you can target them for the reveal, but not the discard. You turned the draw in to a reveal but cant turn it in to a discard.
-
but what I'm saying is your are not negating the discard. When you play christian Martyr on joseph without negating his ability CM isn't negated you just cant target him. because you Can reveal the drawn cards you can target them for the reveal, but not the discard. You turned the draw in to a reveal but cant turn it in to a discard.
That's exactly what he's saying. His whole point is that he believes that, if the discard is a part of the instead, because the cards are protected from discard, the instead can't complete, so the cards are then formally drawn.
-
My point is that it did complete. You can target the cards for the reveal therefore it turns the draw in to reveal and discard but the cards are protected from discard so you can only reveal.
-
That's not how instead works. That was my original understanding as well, and was generally accepted for a long time, but instead doesn't work that way.
-
My point is that it did complete. You can target the cards for the reveal therefore it turns the draw in to reveal and discard but the cards are protected from discard so you can only reveal.
His opinion is that, if the entire instead does not complete (and in this example, it cannot complete if Pol's interpretation of the card is correct, because the cards are not then discarded), then no part of the instead can complete, and the cards go to hand. I personally disagree with this view, but that's what he's saying.
-
As I see it, RBD is an instead ability: Reveal, Place and Discard. The Discard is explaining what to do w/ it and therefore is apart of the Instead. As I see it, RBD can't work if it cannot discard then the Instead cannot complete and thus the cards continue to Hand, wether or not they are Revealed while heading to that Hand doesn't seem consequential to me right now.
And just for reference, I'm going to post the effect of RBD so we can see what we are arguing about.
"All cards that Opponent draws because of a special ability used by that Opponent are Revealed instead. Place Revealed Lost Souls in Opponents territory. Discard the Rest."
-
I am under the same impression as Pol: that if any part of an instead can't be carried out, the instead as a whole fizzles (much like costs).
-
I am under the same impression as Pol: that if any part of an instead can't be carried out, the instead as a whole fizzles (much like costs).
I agree with this; it's why Herod's Temple doesn't work if you're decked out, unless you have zero souls rescued. What I disagree with is that the discard is part of the instead.
-
Well, then I would ask you this: If my deck is protected from reveal but not discard, would RBD discard all the face-down drawn cards? If so, then you're right. If not, then Pol is correct.
-
Well, then I would ask you this: If my deck is protected from reveal but not discard, would RBD discard all the face-down drawn cards? If so, then you're right. If not, then Pol is correct.
I disagree with your conclusion. The discard hinges on the reveal for sure, but the way is card is worded right now (separated into the two sentences), I'm interpreting the card quite literally. I think that the period separating the sentences separates the abilities as well. To answer your original question, it could go either way. The discard may hinge on the reveal, however, that doesn't mean the discard is a part of the instead.
-
Well, then I would ask you this: If my deck is protected from reveal but not discard, would RBD discard all the face-down drawn cards? If so, then you're right. If not, then Pol is correct.
I disagree with your conclusion. The discard hinges on the reveal for sure, but the way is card is worded right now (separated into the two sentences), I'm interpreting the card quite literally. I think that the period separating the sentences separates the abilities as well. To answer your original question, it could go either way. The discard may hinge on the reveal, however, that doesn't mean the discard is a part of the instead.
I don't think that the separating of the sentences separates the abilities as well, based off the revealer ruling. In that one, the place part of the ability was separated from the reveal by periods, yet it was ruled that the place referred back to the reveal as "As instructions for the "opponent" who did the revealing, as to what they should do with the two revealed cards."
"When you draw this card, each opponent must reveal the top two cards of his draw pile. Place each revealed Lost Soul in owner's Land of Bondage. Place the rest beneath owner's draw pile."
The first sentence instructs the opponent to do the revealing, so the owner of the deck is the person who reveals their top 2 cards. I think we all agree on that.
The next two sentence could be read two different ways:
1) As two independent place abilities, no longer controlled by the opponent, but by the owner of the Revealer Lost Soul.
2) As instructions for the "opponent" who did the revealing, as to what they should do with the two revealed cards.
I believe that the second option is the correct interpretation. The two place abilities are instructions tied to the reveal ability. For that reason I've always allowed my opponent to choose the order of the two cards from my "Revealer" (if neither were Lost Souls), and chosen the order myself when my deck was revealed. It seems right that such a powerful Lost Soul as the "Revealer" would have a small, potential drawback of allowing the opponent stack their own bottom of the deck to their possible benefit.
For those that are unfamiliar with the reason a player is allowed to choose the order of the two cards, this is from the REG entry on Place abilities.
"If multiple cards are placed in the same location by the same place ability, the player placing them chooses what order to place them."
-
I agree. They're linked to the Instead, and it's not completed of part of the effect is not completed.
-
I agree. They're linked to the Instead, and it's not completed of part of the effect is not completed.
I still cannot understand any argument that these are separate, so they all must occur.
Let me play Convincing Miracle (because it'll be a miracle if anyone is convinced by the other side):
Convincing Miracle (RA)
Type: Hero Enh. • Brigade: Yellow • Ability: 1 / 4 • Class: None • Special Ability: Search discard pile for a N.T. human Hero and place it in territory. Convert a human Evil Character to a white brigade Hero. Cannot be negated if opponent has less than ten cards in deck
The abilities are all separated, but are you telling me that if there are no EC or they are all protected, I cannot pull the hero? Of course I can do it. They are not dependent, there is no "to" to indicate that there is actually a cost or benefit. There are just abilities that occur in order.
Rain Becomes Dust (Pi)
Type: Curse • Brigade: Gray • Ability: 1 / 5 • Class: None • Special Ability: All cards that an opponent draws because of a special ability used by that opponent are revealed instead. Place all revealed Lost Souls in opponent’s territory. Discard the rest.
Nowhere in either special ability is there a cost or benefit. There is no "X to Y". It is X occurs, then Y occurs. That's the whole point. This is how special abilities work and I am baffled that this argument is still going. You can be protected from the latter ability (just like you can be protected from the Convert in Convincing Miracle), but that doesn't stop the rest (just like I could still pull out a NT hero).
-
I don't think that the separating of the sentences separates the abilities as well, based off the revealer ruling. In that one, the place part of the ability was separated from the reveal by periods, yet it was ruled that the place referred back to the reveal as "As instructions for the "opponent" who did the revealing, as to what they should do with the two revealed cards."
Actually, the way Revealer works is exactly how I think RBD should work, and I still think that it can go either way. My whole point is that the discard, while hinging on the reveal, is still a separate ability. The card reads, "Do this. Now do this after you've done that."
-
Part of the Problem is that RBD is old, which means it doesn't have current wording (or correct wording). RBD is quite like Revealer vs. Convincing Miracle doesn't have that same wording. RBD is explaining what to do, Convincing Miracle is doing 3 different effects that are not tied to each other.
I'd suggest looking at what was posted about Revealer a couple posts up. Gabe explained that Revealer does not change from your Opponent revealing to you doing the rest. The entire effect is connected together as one even if it has periods in it. RBD is the same, it's explaining how you are going to Instead the ability (if that makes sense...) by saying Reveal the cards drawn, Place LS's in play and Discard the Rest. It's simply using grammar for that. It's like saying that Wash Basin has multiple effects, which it doesn't.
-
It's like saying that Wash Basin has multiple effects, which it doesn't.
It does have multiple effects. There is a Reveal, and then a Discard. You can be protected from the Discard, but if you are not protected from the Reveal, it still happens.
Also, I did read the Revealer post above. It has absolutely nothing to do with the RBD discussion, because he is very clear that he is referring to two different instances of "Place" (since you are placing up to two cards). He is not even saying that if the Place is somehow not allowed that the Reveal doesn't happen, just that it requires the Reveal in the first place.
You won't be able to point to a spot in that post where it actually says that all of the abilities are a single ability tied to each other and protected against as one. He actually is trying to determine who controls the Place. That is completely different and irrelevant.
So, both of your examples there do not disprove my statements. You still do each piece, as much as you are able. The rules have always been that you do as much as you are able. This case is no different and you haven't shown otherwise.
-
The point is saying that its not seperated effects and its worded quite close to Revealer.
-
The point is saying that its not seperated effects and its worded quite close to Revealer.
Which actually means nothing. Nowhere in Gabe's post did he say that it all being connected meant that all abilities on all similar cards cannot happen unless every single ability can. His whole post was about who was able to Place.
Read it again.
-
Part of the Problem is that RBD is old, which means it doesn't have current wording (or correct wording). RBD is quite like Revealer vs. Convincing Miracle doesn't have that same wording. RBD is explaining what to do, Convincing Miracle is doing 3 different effects that are not tied to each other.
RBD is from Priests, which isn't old in the least. By that point in time, proper wording was pretty normal, and really, I don't think there's anything wrong with the wording here. I actually think that Gabe's post can be used to offer support for both our sides, but ultimately, I don't think that that particular ruling is really that relevant, aside from having similar wording.
-
From the REG, regarding Instead abilities and protection:
"If a card is immune or otherwise protected from the new effect, the original effect is still applied. If a card is immune or otherwise protected from the original effect, the card is not affected at all.
Example: "… blue Heroes that would be discarded are returned to territory instead", with two other active effects: "N.T. Heroes are protected from withdraw abilities" and "O.T. Heroes are protected from discard abilities". Because the blue N.T. Heroes are protected from withdraw, they are discarded as normal. Because the blue O.T. Heroes are protected from discard, they are unaffected."
So if your deck is protected from Reveal (e.g., Simon the Zealot), then the Instead doesn't happen. But what if your deck is only protected from part of the new effect? The Reveal happens first, and 4DC does not protect against this. The Instead should happen, to the full extent it can, unless an ability is protected against.
I see this as the same as using Zeal for the Lord when only 1 evil character is in play. You do as much as you can - having 2 ECs in play is not a requirement for Zeal to work. Similarly, using RBD against an opponent that has 4DC active does all that it can - it Insteads the Draw by Revealing instead, it Places lost souls in play, and there is no Discard. And that is completely ok, because the Reveal is not dependent on the Discard, just as Zeal is not dependent on having 2 ECs in play.
-
FWIW, it is my interpretation that RBD's reveal is the only "instead" ability. The discard/put in play instructs you as to what to do after the reveal.
-
The problem is where does it go after that?
-
back to where it came from just like every other reveal.
Revealing a card does not change its location, just its visibility.
-
The card changes where it goes.
-
The card changes where it goes.
From everything that is posted here, assuming that Prof A and I are correct, here's what happens:
Card gets revealed and the instead completes. Lost Souls are put in play, and the rest go back to the top of the deck.
-
No it doesn't, it changes the draw in to a reveal and then tries to discard but if you're protected from the discard the discard can't target it thus it doesn't happen so now it goes from draw these cards to just reveal these cards and since reveal doesn't change the location they stay in deck.
-
No it doesn't, it changes the draw in to a reveal and then tries to discard but if you're protected from the discard the discard can't target it thus it doesn't happen so now it goes from draw these cards to just reveal these cards and since reveal doesn't change the location they stay in deck.
Are you responding to me or megamanlan, because that's roughly what I said.
-
Megamanlan
-
To respond to the question about how Reveal changes where the cards go back to:
Eve (Di)
Type: Hero Char. • Brigade: Blue • Ability: 7 / 3 • Class: None • Special Ability: Reveal the top X cards of deck. Add to hand all revealed humans. Eve ignores female Evil Characters.
It never says where to put the cards, but we don't argue that they are added to hand. They go back to where they were originally, and that is the deck (in their original order). Because the instead changes the draw to a reveal, if it does not specify where they end up, then they default to the location they were revealed from (the deck).
-
I see this as the same as using Zeal for the Lord when only 1 evil character is in play. You do as much as you can - having 2 ECs in play is not a requirement for Zeal to work.
Your post is solid except for this part. "Instead" is a converse cost/benefit ability. That's not in question here and it is an indesputable fact, you are not allowed to "do as much as you can" for an Instead to work, you must do it all or the original effect happens. What's in question is how much of RBD's effect is part of the instead and how much is unrelated to the instead. The way I read it, the discard is part of the instead, but the other side is also valid. Only one of us can be right, but neither is wrong based on the rules or logic.
-
Can you provide the reference or ruling that you are using to say that Instead isn't also "as much as you can", which is the game rule that governs all similar situations? There is no basis from the REG or rulings I have ever seen to state that all abilities from an Instead must happen for the Instead to even take place.
-
Because it is a cost/benefit ability mechanically. "Do X to not do Y." If part of X is not done (the instead ability) you do not get to not do Y (the original ability). For example, when you play Primary Objective with Chamber up and an Angel in hand, you don't get to rescue a soul for force your opponent's discard because you didn't Discard your whole hand. You didn't Discard the Angels. Doing as much as you can is not sufficient.
-
Can you provide the reference or ruling that you are using to say that Instead isn't also "as much as you can", which is the game rule that governs all similar situations? There is no basis from the REG or rulings I have ever seen to state that all abilities from an Instead must happen for the Instead to even take place.
Herod's Temple is a great ruling to point to. It's unusable if you don't have enough cards in your deck for the discard.
-
Because it is a cost/benefit ability mechanically. "Do X to not do Y." If part of X is not done (the instead ability) you do not get to not do Y (the original ability). For example, when you play Primary Objective with Chamber up and an Angel in hand, you don't get to rescue a soul for force your opponent's discard because you didn't Discard your whole hand. You didn't Discard the Angels. Doing as much as you can is not sufficient.
You're mixing up X, Y, and cost/benefit.
There is no cost benefit. Something happens to the cards instead of what was originally intended. In this case, they are Revealed. Then more happens to them. If the cards are protected from Reveal, then the original ability resolves. Otherwise, the cards are Revealed. What happens after that can be protected against as well, but that would not stop the cards from having been Revealed.
Your example has nothing to do with this case. It has everything to do with the fact that the card was not actually discarded because of the Instead. They are not even comparable, I have no idea where you're going with that.
-
You're mixing up X, Y, and cost/benefit.
There is no cost benefit
You're wrong. Cost/benefit is exactly how instead works.
-
You're mixing up X, Y, and cost/benefit.
There is no cost benefit
You're wrong. Cost/benefit is exactly how instead works.
The Reveal is what happens as a result of the Instead. The rest of the ability just tells you what to do with those cards (which can be protected against as normal).
No matter how you define it, it is the Reveal that happens Instead of the draw. As with every Reveal card though, it specifies how to handle those cards.
What you're saying is not applicable to this case.
-
Herod's Temple.
-
Oh, I see why you're confused. We stopped talking about what you're talking about a little while ago.
For the last time, the question here is about whether the discard is part of the instead requirements, and without a ruling there can be no resolution.
-
For the last time, the question here is about whether the discard is part of the instead requirements, and without a ruling there can be no resolution.
I am talking about that. I am saying that all cards to be drawn are Instead revealed. The rest just defines what to do with the reveal.
And the current ruling was determined in a different thread and given again in this thread by an elder:
Revealed LS's are put in play, and the other cards are put back on the deck.
FWIW, it is my interpretation that RBD's reveal is the only "instead" ability. The discard/put in play instructs you as to what to do after the reveal.
So there is the current ruling you are looking for, in line with what I have said.
-
One Elder giving an opinion does not make a ruling.
-
It is consistent with everything stated by multiple elders in multiple threads that have since ceased being argued. Haven't seen any dissent on this. Ask them for a different ruling if you disagree.
-
It is consistent with everything stated by multiple elders in multiple threads that have since ceased being argued. Haven't seen any dissent on this. Ask them for a different ruling if you disagree.
Then please link me to those threads, specifically dealing with the issue of RBD's ability when used against 4DC.
-
It is consistent with everything stated by multiple elders in multiple threads that have since ceased being argued. Haven't seen any dissent on this. Ask them for a different ruling if you disagree.
Then please link me to those threads, specifically dealing with the issue of RBD's ability when used against 4DC.
You can do a search on this board. I have to get going to playgroup. There is nothing in any ruling to support your argument that if one piece of RBD is protected against the rest doesn't happen, nor that the Discard is the Instead instead of the Reveal. Everything supports the exact opposite. Have fun.
-
You can do a search on this board. I have to get going to playgroup. There is nothing in any ruling to support your argument that if one piece of RBD is protected against the rest doesn't happen, nor that the Discard is the Instead instead of the Reveal. Everything supports the exact opposite. Have fun.
The ruling on Herod's Temple actually proves me right. In order for you to instead the discard, you must have cards in your deck to discard. If not all of the ability completes, the instead doesn't work. I see no reason that the issue on protection is any different.
Furthermore, that still has nothing to do with the issue of RBD right now, which is whether the discard is considered a part of the instead or not.
-
That's not true, because the entire effect is tied to the Instead and thus must be part of the instead. The way that you are saying the card is, RBD would still Discard if it was protected from Reveal. But that is now assuming that they are 2 different effects. So your way would be I reveal them, put them back face-down (so it completes) attempt to put the LS's in play and Discard them. Which makes no sense.
The problem is that you are treating a card that has 3 components of 1 effect, and treating it as 3 completely seperate effects and using Convincing Miracle (which has more than one effect) to support that point, which it doesn't.
-
That's not true, because the entire effect is tied to the Instead and thus must be part of the instead. The way that you are saying the card is, RBD would still Discard if it was protected from Reveal. But that is now assuming that they are 2 different effects. So your way would be I reveal them, put them back face-down (so it completes) attempt to put the LS's in play and Discard them. Which makes no sense.
Actually, that works perfectly well. The reveal happens, and then the following place and discard abilities happen, with the (correct) assumption that those abilities are targeting the cards that were just revealed. Regardless of whether or not this is correct ruling, it's a perfectly valid interpretation of the way the card should be played. Even Pol, an REP who believes it should be played the other way, agrees that it's a valid way for it to be ruled. Simply dismissing it as invalid isn't a good argument anymore, because it's well established that it's fine, with at least one Elder agreeing that this is how it works.