Cactus Game Design Message Boards

yes its protected

Protection is hardcore!

yes its protected

I know that is how it is played and how it has been ruled.  I'm pretty sure that was also the intent of the card.  It is also how I think it should be played.

However, I'm noticing an apparent contradiction here.  In the massive debates over Protection of Angels, it seems like they settled on the rule that negate always trumps protect or in other words, you can't protect from negate.  The only protection from negate is to have an "can't be interrupted, prevented, or negated" ability.  Since Lampstand does not have that status then why would it be an exception to this rule? 

So I think the proper ruling would be that DoN does negate Lampstand but of course that leads me back to my first paragraph. 

To expound Gabe's quote, the SA of Destruction of Nehushtan is:

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

There are two sentences. The second sentence is contingent upon completion of the first sentence (i.e. [That] Artifact's ability...). Since the first sentence (discard the artifact) cannot target Lampstand, the second sentence never becomes relevant.