Cactus Game Design Message Boards

Protection of Angels

Type: Hero Enh. • Brigade: Silver • Ability: 2 / 3 • Class: None • Special Ability: All Heroes in Holder's territory are immune to harm or effect until end of turn. • Play As: Protect all Heroes in holder’s territory until end of turn. • Identifiers: OT, Involves Music • Verse: Psalms 91:11 • Availability: Warriors booster packs (Uncommon)

Type: Hero Enh. • Brigade: Silver • Ability: 2 / 3 • Class: None • Special Ability: Interrupt the battle and protect all Heroes in play and set aside areas from evil cards until end of turn. • Identifiers: OT, Involves Music • Verse: Psalms 91:11 • Availability: Priests booster packs (Common)

I would say that it depends on which POA you use (since the Play As is only attached to the warrior version (though, I never read the debate))

As for the OP, I would say DON can't go through LOTS.

You can't be protected from negation, it goes back to the whole rock/paper/scissors thing.

It was ruled when Lampstand first came out that DoN could negate it, but the wording doesn't really work for that.

Minister Polarius and SirNobody (and those that agreed) are correct.

The second sentence of Destruction says "that artifact," which refers to the artifact that was discarded.  If there was no discarded artifact, then there is no "that artifact."

You are all correct, though, that you cannot generally protect from a negate.  Only "cannot be negated (I/P)" limits the targets of negates.

Does it make a difference that the second sentence of Destruction doesn't actually say "that artifact?" 

DoN  Discard one active Artifact in play. Artifact's ability is negated.

Even if the word "that" was included why would "that" refer to the "Discard" as opposed to point back to "one active artifact?"

I've been asking that as well. It seems that when you play DoN, it targets an artifact, and then two abilities activate based on that target. First it tries to discard. In this case, it can't due to protection. Then, it tries to negate it, which it can do because you cant protect from negates.

Now, some of you all say "but you cant do that, because the first part is protected against!" Why then... can I play AoCP when there are EC's that are protected from discard? If I cant discard ALL evil characters, I shouldn't be able to play the card then. Can you not play cards regardless of if their targets are protected?

I really don't understand why this doesn't follow the "as much as you can" and the "two separate sentences" meta-rules. If the sentences are contingent on each other, why can I use DoN on a CBN artifact to discard it?

I've been trying to follow this logic as well. Why apply "as much as you can" to some cards, but then say it doesnt work with others.

why not just fix cards like TMiE?

"Holder may activate a new Artifact, which takes immediate effect. Negate the previous Artifact."

Smaller, simpler, and easier to understand

Quote from: EmJayBee83 on November 15, 2009, 11:09:04 AM

If the sentences are contingent on each other, why can I use DoN on a CBN artifact to discard it?

Because the second sentence is contingent on the first, not the other way around (at least, that's what I've gotten from the thread thus far). DoN can discard but then fail to negate; however if the discard fails the negate isn't even attempted.

Again, how does this play into the "do as much as you can" ruling?

If I have no cards left in my deck, I can still play reach to interrupt the battle and play the next enhancement, regardless of not having anything to draw.

If I use Stalks of Flax to swap two heroes, and both of their heroes die, I still get my heroes back after two turns, even though all the heroes are not left to return.

If I have Jerusalem Tower active, and my opponent plays confusion or Gabriel, they still get to search through my deck, even though they are not allowed to discard anything.

"Artifact" in the second sentence is referring to the artifact you discarded.

If we wanted you to be able to negate and discard the artifact, we would have worded it that way.  ("Negate and discard an artifact.")  We actually had that discussion in playtesting.

You can't negate the artifact if it isn't discarded, since "Artifact" is clearly referring to the artifact you discarded.

Quote from: Lamborghini_diablo on November 15, 2009, 01:59:31 PM

why not just fix cards like TMiE?

"Holder may activate a new Artifact, which takes immediate effect. Negate the previous Artifact."

Smaller, simpler, and easier to understand

Really? What if I have Tables of the Law active in my artifact pile, then activate Solomon's Temple and move Tables of the Law to the temple. I then activate a new artifact in my artifact pile. In battle, I then use TMiE as an ehancement but do not choose the "may" option. Does the second sentence still activate, therefore negating my "previous artifact" Tables of the Law?

I would say TMiE would do what you described as it already is.

"Artifact" in the second sentence is referring to the artifact you discarded.

If that is the case, why did you base your initial post on this around a non-existent "that' in DoN's SA? Seriously, you initially claimed that the word "that" was important in making the second sentence contingent on the first. Now, you claim that it doesn't matter. I'm not arguing here, I am trying to understand what your original argument actually was and whether or not an extra "that" would have made a difference.

Secondly, it appears you are skipping over the question that is being asked. Neither L Diablo nor I are arguing that the word "Artifact's" in the second sentence is referring to a different artifact than mentioned in the first sentence--this is a red herring. We are asking why the negate is contingent on the discard.

In general two special abilities separated by a period are treated as independent SAs. We know that artifacts can simply be negated so there is no requirement that an artifact be discarded before it can be negated. What is it in the sentence "Artifact's ability is negated." that makes the negate SA contingent upon the success of the discard SA?

Quote from: EmJayBee83 on November 15, 2009, 06:51:05 PM

If that is the case, why did you base your initial post on this around a non-existent "that' in DoN's SA? Seriously, you initially claimed that the word "that" was important in making the second sentence contingent on the first.

Are you seriously suggesting that you can discard artifact A and then negate artifact B?

Since I said that

Neither L Diablo nor I are arguing that the word "Artifact's" in the second sentence is referring to a different artifact than mentioned in the first sentence--this is a red herring.

I'm guessing that I didn't mean to suggest that at all. I was trying to understand why you choose to make such a big deal of the non-existent "that" in your original post. Since you built your entire argument around "that" I thought maybe it was important.

Since we all agree that the artifact in sentence one and two are the same, can you answer the actual question that L Diablo and I actually are asking--to whit...

What is it in the sentence "Artifact's ability is negated." that makes the negate SA contingent upon the success of the discard SA?

Hey,

Since we all agree that the artifact in sentence one and two are the same, can you answer the actual question that L Diablo and I actually are asking--to whit...

Quote from: EmJayBee83

What is it in the sentence "Artifact's ability is negated." that makes the negate SA contingent upon the success of the discard SA?

The lack of an adjective (a, any, one, all, etc) before "artifact" in the second sentence suggests that either the ability is referring to the card it is on, the character the card is played on (neither of which applies in the case of a dominant), or a previous ability on the card.  Since it refers to the previous ability on the card, if the previous ability on the card doesn't target anything then it doesn't target anything either.

Tschow,

Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly

I am the judge who made the ruling that is in question.  I understand the point of view that says that it I ruled incorrectly, but how exactly is a new host supposed to know which cards with 2 sentences are "paired" abilities and which aren't.  We seem to have a lack of a general rule on how to play cards like DoN.  It is a supposedly "paired" ability that is written like  two separate abilities.  I took it as "discard an artifact. That artifact's ability is negated"  Which because of 12FG PoA which says protect does not stop negation.  So 1 + 1 =\= 2.  DoN has no play as or errata that would suggest they are paired abilities.  I even consulted another vetern player and they agreed.  So thats 2 people with experience(counting JDS) plus me who did not see the "paired" abilities.  Just because the implication is obvious to some (i.e. the playtesters) does not mean it is obvious to every one else.  Isn't that the purpose of the REG to contain the information I need to do my job as a host?

On the play itself, why does DoN's negate not interrupt the ongoing protect to prevent it?  The definition of negate is interrupt and prevent.  Lampstand does not say cannot be prevented or negated.  In battle I can target a protected character to remove their protection with a negate, why not in this case?