Cactus Game Design Message Boards

We are strongly considering combining the abilities immune and protect to treat them as the same special ability. Functional they are the same, but in practice they have been treated as unique special abilities.

This change means that:

• A card which says "negate protect abilities" will also negate immune abilities.
• A card that says "regardless of protection" will also play as "regardless of immunity".

This is what will change in the REG if we move forward with this.

How to Play
Immune and protect abilities are interchangeable.

Special Conditions (remove text)
Immune and protect are targeted separately by abilities based on the name of the ability referenced.  A card that negates immunity will not negate protection, and a card that is regardless of protection will not be able to affect an immune target.

How to Play
For example, the phrase “regardless of protection” allows the modified ability to target any card that is immune or protected, even though it normally cannot.

Special Conditions (remove)
For example, if a card is immune, or both protected and immune, then “regardless of protection” would still not allow that card to be a target, as the immunity is not avoided.

We welcome your feedback and questions about how this might impact the game we all enjoy.

I'm for it, I've been wanting this for years (ever since it was determined that they worked identically anyway). It also makes cards like Ambush the City have less weird interactions. My only concern is Regardless of Protection/Immunity on battle winners, and while I'd like my Plague of Frogs and Stone of Thebez to get around both Protection and Immunity, I'd understand if it's a problem.

Very much in favour. It makes no sense to have two identical abilities not treated as the same

I like it! Very much in favor of this ruling.

Quote from: jesse on July 15, 2016, 05:59:17 PM

A question I have is, is this kind of the opposite of the trend we've been moving to of keeping abilities distinct so as to simplify the game for new players (especially) as well as veterans? I suppose it's easy enough to teach people that "immune = protect", but for a parallel example, are exchange and search functionally the same as well? Or is that not a parallel scenario to this one?

Immune and protect always do the exact same thing, we just have two ways of saying it. That has been true for several years now. We've only treated them differently based on the examples given in the first post.

If AUTO enters battle and exchanges with Gideon in your territory, is that a search?

If David, the Shepherd gets The Throne of David out of your deck and plays it, is that an exchange?

See how search and exchange are different, even though at times they can function similarly?

Yes, I see - thanks for explaining! Sounds like a good decision!

I'll dissent this one.  I actually would like Protection to be "protection from special abilities", like it used to be, and Immunity be "protection from special abilities and infinite toughness (0/*)".  It distinguishes the two, as well as makes all the "protected from opponents" abilities a little less invincible. 

Problem is that this makes all of the current soul protect abilities not work the same and other current uses of protect may not make sense anymore (I believe that came up when we discussed this particular option ourselves).

Problem is that this makes all of the current soul protect abilities not work the same and other current uses of protect may not make sense anymore (I believe that came up when we discussed this particular option ourselves).

Actually, I think the infrastructure for handling Protect abilities on LS is already built into the proposed rule above.  But let me reword a few things to clarify.

General Description
Protect abilities keep the target from being able to be targeted by special abilities used by the card and/or person which it is protected from, and also allow it to be unaffected by game rules which would normally affect it.

How to Play
A card that is protected from a card or group of cards cannot be targeted by a special ability that is on any card to which it is protected, nor on an enhancement played on any character to which it is protected.
A card that is protected from opponent or opponents cannot be targeted by any special ability on a card controlled by that opponent or opponents.
Game rules do not apply to a card that is protected from the effect of the game rule.
Protect abilities target the cards that gain the protected status.
All protect abilities are ongoing.

Default Conditions
● Protect abilities last until the end of the phase in which they are used.
● Characters cannot be protected from themselves.

Special Conditions
● Protection from cards only stops the card from being targeted by the special abilities of those cards, not from game rules influenced by those cards.
● Protection from opponents only stops the card from being targeted by the special abilities on cards controlled by opponents, not from game rules influenced by those cards.
● Protection from effects stops the card from being affected by game rules that result in those effects and cards with special abilities that result in those effects.

Game rules do not apply to a card that is protected from the effect of the game rule...  Protection from effects stops the card from being affected by game rules that result in those effects and cards with special abilities that result in those effects.

This bolded portion is why LS with "protected from rescue" would still work just as we've always played them. 

Example 1:  NT male hero in battle.  NT-only LS and Female-only LS are available in opponent's LoB.  NT male hero wins the battle.  Opponent plays Burial on the NT-only LS.  The Female-only LS is protected from rescue by a male hero, which would normally happen at this time by game rule.  Instead, no LS is rescued.

Example 2:  Player A attacks with a hero that Draws 3, bringing his hand up to 11.  There are 5 LS in Player B's LoB, including the Speed Bump LS.  Player B does not block.  Player A does not rescue a LS, because all 5 LS in Player B's LoB are protected from rescue by Player A via both special ability and game rule at battle resolution.

You'll notice that a bulletproof Gideon or Thad can now die by numbers with my proposed rule.  In fact, I kept almost everything worded exactly the same, with a few clarifying sentences to define "Protected from opponents".  Your wording for "Protection from effects" already set the stage that those cards would still die by numbers.

I'm on board with this proposed change 100%

Sorry for resurrect this one, but is it the case now that protect == immune? Are both now synonyms?
Meaning when a card negates immune abilties it also negates protect abilities the same way (and vice versa)?

Thanx!

I agree with this change. Makes perfect sense to me.

Well you're in luck this change was successfully made years ago