Cactus Game Design Message Boards

Since Tabernacle actually specifies the word "contents", and since its whole point is to alter the protection given by Glory, I believe that all Artifacts in The Tabernacle would be protected.

However, given the responses last time, I'd hold out for further confirmation as I may be wholly wrong again.

Based on the conversation in the previous thread and this one, I would agree that there is a different situation affecting this ruling.  I am not sure, however, that it is a different result, so let's discuss an issue I do not believe is overall addressed by the rules.

Goshen  protects contents, so does it protect placed cards, placed enhancements, or weapons on the characters?  By rule, those cards are being "held" by the characters, not by the fortress, just like The Tabernacle "holds" Book of the Covenant, and that in turn "holds" the covenants.

The ruling regarding Solomon's Temple is different, because it specifies the exact contents that are protected ("the artifact"), in the same way that Kingdoms of the World or Kerith Ravine protect "characters" held there.  Anything held by a protected card in those fortresses are not specifically protected by the ability, and so they may be targeted.

The ruling here requires that we define "contents".  There are two potential definitions, which are below along with the outcome of the ruling depending on the one chosen:

1. "Contents" references any card that is specified as being able to be held by the card through its own ability, through weapon-class rules, or through another card's place ability that directly targets the holding card.

• Result: Same ruling as with Solomon's Temple, as the targets of the protection would be clearly defined, and not be able to refer to cards held by held cards.

2. "Contents" references any card held by the card or any card held by these held cards (and so on).

• Result: The covenants would be protected, as they would be included as targets for protection.

Admittedly, these are not good definitions to be added to the rules, that would need to be cleaned up.  However, one of these needs to be chosen, so that these special fortress cases can have a consistent ruling.  Personally, I like the second definition just for simplicity's sake (Is it inside that fortress somehow?  Protected.), but that'd be an Elder call.

Thoughts?

I agree with Dayne that we need to clearly define "contents." While I also lean towards the second definition, it would be best to examine all cards that use the "contents" wording before deciding.

According to a Visualizer search for the word "contents" here is the list of cards in ABC order:
-Burst of Light - Shuffles The Darkness and its contents.
-Destroying the Stronghold - Discards Demonic Stronghold and underdecks its contents.
-Dust and Ashes - When Job is harmed or defeated by an opponent, he goes here. Each upkeep returns contents to hand.
-Goshen (promo) - Protects contents from all effects.
-Hormah - Underdecks itself and its contents.
-House in Bethany - Protects contents from evil cards.
-Obadiah's Caves - Green prophets being removed are placed here instead. Each upkeep shuffles contents into deck.
-Prince of the Air - Underdecks Chamber of Angels and its contents.
-Stronghold in the Desert - Protects contents from opponents' cards.
-Table of Showbread - If deactivated, returns contents to hand. Contents are OT good enhancements.
-The Tabernacle - "Glory of the Lord protects this card and its contents."
-Threatened Lives - Underdecks a Site and its contents.
-Tower of Thebez - Protects contents from opponents.


Side note: "Contents" no longer looks like a real word to me, haha.

I still agree with Definition #2.

Even so, a card placed on another card is still ON the card, so I would agree in saying that the same rule applies. If Card A is on Card B, and Card A is in Card C, then Card B is in Card C. That still makes the most sense to me.

Oh, yeah, no, I agree. A card placed on the actual Fortress itself as per its own play ability should not be considered the contents of the Fortress.

I'm of the opinion that placed cards should never be "held" by the card that they are placed on regardless of alignment because Place and Holds are different and separate abilities (and if placed cards are "held" then place doesn't really need to exist as an ability).

Opinions aside, it doesn't seem like it would be difficult to word it in such a way that opposing alignment placed cards are excluded (something to the effect of "Contents are defined as cards held by a Holds ability/identifier or by game rule (Sites) as well as cards of the same alignment held by those cards.")

"Contents are defined as cards held by a Holds ability/identifier or by game rule (Sites) as well as cards not of an opposing alignment held by those cards."

Maybe? I don't remember if neutral would be considered an opposing alignment (I know neutral can count as "harm", not sure in this case).

I feel like this is a good reason for what I was saying earlier about Place being considered different than Holds, lol. If Placed cards are not Held then it could be as simple as "Contents are defined as cards held by a Holds ability/identifier or by game rule (Sites) as well as any cards held by those cards."