Cactus Game Design Message Boards

I believe "protect ... the Artifact in it" would be considered old wording for "protect contents" so I would rule that Covenants in Book of the Covenant in Solomon's Temple would also be protected. INE, though, and not 100% sure of this.

I would say it works like matryoshka dolls. If the largest is protected, and the next largest is also protected, then it would stand to reason that any of the smaller dolls that were inside of those two would also be protected.

A strict reading of the card would say that ST and BotC are protected, but the covenants are not. That also happens to be how I would rule it. The reason being that "The Artifact" referenced is the temple Artifact (in this case, BotC). A similar situation would be Protection of Jerusalem (either version) and Storehouse. Just because the Fortress is protected, the enhancements inside it can still be targeted. Another similar situation would be a weapon on a protected character. Assyrian Camp may protect the Assyrian with 2kH, but, to the relief/chagrin of T2 players who play against/with Assyrians, the weapon is not protected.

The answer I get for this will either make me really angry or really relieved. Just saying.

Sorry to inspire ire. Please don't hurt me.

I would say it works like matryoshka dolls. If the largest is protected, and the next largest is also protected, then it would stand to reason that any of the smaller dolls that were inside of those two would also be protected.

That is an interesting yet entirely valid metaphor.

Interesting, yes. Valid, not quite.

Strictly speaking, if I have a bubble of protection around something, how exactly would you get through it to the things held inside it? If my hand is protected you couldn't discard a card from it even if you had a card that said "discard a card from anywhere" because the location it's in is protected. Is there a specific reason that a fortress/artifact holding something is different?

The difference here though, is that Glory protects the temple AND its contents. These others only protect fortresses (and not the specifically the contents) or EC (and not placed cards/weapons held).

By the printed ability of the card, that first sentence is wrong.  Glory of the Lord: "Place in territory. Holder's Solomon's Temple and the Artifact in it cannot be discarded or negated by an opponent. Discard this card if Asherah Pole is in holder's Solomon's Temple."  Note that it does not say 'contents' anywhere.  Instead, it specifically calls out 'the Artifact in it'.  That's a very narrowly defined bubble of protection granted.

I agree with your second sentence here, which is why I also must agree with Prof A's reading of Glory.  Glory of the Lord only grants protection to the singular artifact held in Solomon's Temple, not any additional contents of that artifact.

More than anything else, it was really just wishful thinking on my part.

Quote from: _JM_ on December 12, 2013, 07:40:02 PM

I agree with your second sentence here, which is why I also must agree with Prof A's reading of Glory.  Glory of the Lord only grants protection to the singular artifact held in Solomon's Temple, not any additional contents of that artifact.

And this again is where I disagree. The covenants are inside/on BotC so therefore you have to get through BotC to get to those covenants, which you can't because BotC is protected. The artifact is a protected location so anything inside it should be protected as well, per current rule definitions (if hand is protected you can't select anything in it directly to discard, etc.)

If you can discard the covenants from BotC with Glory active then I should be able to discard a single card from your hand even if you have Simon the Zealot active because Simon only protects the location of your hand, not the cards in it.

From the REG: All protect abilities are ongoing.  A protect ability targets the cards that gain protected status.

Protect does not target a location, it targets cards.

Simon the Zealot: Negate and discard Rome and a N.T. Idol. First Strike. Protect your hand and deck from opponents’ cards while this Hero remains in play.

By definition of protect, Simon targets the cards that that are in 'your hand' and 'your deck'.  He does not target a location, he targets cards in a location.

Incorporating definition of protect, Glory can only protect 'the Artifact' (singular) in Solomon's Temple because that artifact is its target.  Any other cards on that artifact cannot be targeted for protection, because they are not 'the Artifact'.

EDIT:
Need to address one other issue - targeting a covenant on BotC doesn't "go through" BotC.  An ability targeting a covenant would merely target that covenant, not anything that's holding it.  I don't need to worry about Assyrian Camp when I play Passover Hymn to discard 2K Horses off of Assyrian Archer; I also wouldn't need to worry about Glory protecting BotC if I wanted to DoN one of those covenants, because I'm not targeting BotC (or Assyrian Archer), I'm targeting the covenant (or 2KH).

Definition of targets: In Redemption®, the target(s) of a special ability are the card(s), special abilities, or player(s) that the special ability performs the action to.

I don't need to worry about Assyrian Camp when I play Passover Hymn to discard 2K Horses off of Assyrian Archer; I also wouldn't need to worry about Glory protecting BotC if I wanted to DoN one of those covenants, because I'm not targeting BotC (or Assyrian Archer), I'm targeting the covenant (or 2KH).

I posit that this comparison is not valid. Weapon-class enhancements are not the same as an artifact/fortress that holds something so you can't compare a ruling on one to a ruling on another (even if they have the same result, which I still disagree with).

I guess I just don't understand why targeting a location with a protect includes, by definition, the cards in that location, but targeting a card that is acting as a location (BotC, or any Fortress with a Holds ability) doesn't include cards in that location. It seems inconsistent to me.

Quote from: browarod on December 13, 2013, 11:01:22 AM

I posit that this comparison is not valid. Weapon-class enhancements are not the same as an artifact/fortress that holds something so you can't compare a ruling on one to a ruling on another (even if they have the same result, which I still disagree with).

Weapon-class enhancements are held in the same way that cards on an Artifact/Fortress are held. Just because some of the rules for how they behave are different does not mean that the holding function is different.

But rules for how something behaves/works is what defines that thing so if 2 things have different rules then they, by definition, can't be the same. I'm probably just debating semantics at this point, though, so whatever.

I think the best example of an identical situation (in the material aspects) is the argument above with Protection of Jerusalem and Storehouse.  By your logic, PoJ transfers its protection through Storehouse to the GEs held by Storehouse.

And why exactly is that bad? It makes sense (apparently only to me, though), it would make these sorts of abilities more versatile/useful, it makes the rules more consistent (again, though, apparently I'm the only one that thinks so), and I don't see any reason why it would make anything broken (if you consider my other opinion that weapons are different and should be treated differently).

I know when I'm not wanted, though, and everyone's consistent disagreement with me hasn't fallen on deaf ears. I withdraw from this discussion.

Luxumbra has the correct answer, perhaps this should just be locked.