Author Topic: Does 4D coin protect from RBD? (Read 9038 times)

megamanlan · « **Reply #25 on:** April 16, 2012, 10:32:59 AM »

Actually, that is what's being argued here. I don't agree that they go back to Deck.

lp670sv · « **Reply #26 on:** April 16, 2012, 10:58:23 AM »

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.

megamanlan · « **Reply #27 on:** April 16, 2012, 12:12:08 PM »

If you check what's being argued here its that RBD would send those cards to Hand because they are not D/C'd.

lp670sv · « **Reply #28 on:** April 16, 2012, 12:20:09 PM »

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.

Josh · « **Reply #29 on:** April 16, 2012, 12:33:29 PM »

Quote from: megamanlan on April 15, 2012, 10:33:04 PM

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.

Minister Polarius · « **Reply #30 on:** April 16, 2012, 12:40:17 PM »

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)."

megamanlan · « **Reply #31 on:** April 16, 2012, 12:49:52 PM »

That's what I am saying. The Instead doesn't complete so it does not Instead.

lp670sv · « **Reply #32 on:** April 16, 2012, 12:51:47 PM »

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

Minister Polarius · « **Reply #33 on:** April 16, 2012, 12:53:29 PM »

Which is the point of contention. I read the SA as "If Draw INSTEAD reveal and discard."

lp670sv · « **Reply #34 on:** April 16, 2012, 12:55:17 PM »

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.

Minister Polarius · « **Reply #35 on:** April 16, 2012, 12:56:39 PM »

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.

lp670sv · « **Reply #36 on:** April 16, 2012, 01:03:39 PM »

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

Minister Polarius · « **Reply #37 on:** April 16, 2012, 01:10:05 PM »

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.

lp670sv · « **Reply #38 on:** April 16, 2012, 01:11:59 PM »

it succeeded in instead the draw to a reveal. It doesnt negate the instead it just protects from discard.

Chronic Apathy · « **Reply #39 on:** April 16, 2012, 01:17:09 PM »

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.

Minister Polarius · « **Reply #40 on:** April 16, 2012, 01:20:03 PM »

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.

lp670sv · « **Reply #41 on:** April 16, 2012, 01:22:14 PM »

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.

Chronic Apathy · « **Reply #42 on:** April 16, 2012, 01:24:33 PM »

Quote from: lp670sv on April 16, 2012, 01:22:14 PM

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.

lp670sv · « **Reply #43 on:** April 16, 2012, 01:26:31 PM »

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.

Minister Polarius · « **Reply #44 on:** April 16, 2012, 01:27:19 PM »

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.

Chronic Apathy · « **Reply #45 on:** April 16, 2012, 01:28:19 PM »

Quote from: lp670sv on April 16, 2012, 01:26:31 PM

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.

megamanlan · « **Reply #46 on:** April 16, 2012, 01:49:15 PM »

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."

browarod · « **Reply #47 on:** April 16, 2012, 02:19:22 PM »

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).

Chronic Apathy · « **Reply #48 on:** April 16, 2012, 02:22:13 PM »

Quote from: browarod on April 16, 2012, 02:19:22 PM

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.

browarod · « **Reply #49 on:** April 16, 2012, 02:24:01 PM »

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.

News:

Author Topic: Does 4D coin protect from RBD? (Read 9038 times)

Chronic Apathy

Chronic Apathy

Chronic Apathy

browarod

Chronic Apathy

browarod