Cactus Game Design Message Boards

Jaddua's protect only works while he is in battle right? So it would not protect Ram's Horn from discarding itself?

Jaddua - "...Protect all Artifacts in play, hands, and Artifact piles from discard abilities."

Ram's Horn - "...If your rescue attempt is successful, discard this card and one single-color site from each opponent's territory."

Character ongoing special abilities last until the end of the Phase. Ram's Horn would resolve during Battle Resolution, which is still part of the Battle Phase, so I think Jaddua still protects from it.

I tend to agree with YMT on this one, as it is still the Battle Phase when Ram's Horn attempts to discard itself, and therefore it should be protected from its own discard.  For those wondering, only characters cannot be protected from themselves.

Jaddua should stop Ram's Horn from blowing itself up, yes.

Which, if I read it right, also stops the site discard, yes?

No, you would still discard a site.  It is not a cost-benefit (which would read "discard this card to discard a site").  Both things happen, it is just that Ram's Horn is protected.

YMT and Redoubter are correct.

There is almost zero reason why Ram's Horn should not be a cost benefit ability. Its not really a big deal because its not like Jaddua will get much initiative but it just gets old after while. Jaddua's ability also makes me lol a bit why not just say "...protect neutral cards from evil cards". Yeah that is more powerful but actually (very) necessary in hindsight.

The obvious question is this: In a game where we do not have paid playtesters. Why do we not ban cards or make more errata's? I mean, if Jordan, Tim, Gabe...etc could play test for a living I doubt we would have so many funky wordings or broken cards. There is literally not enough incentive for play testers to really put in the time they need to make card ever card balanced cards. I don't really have an issue with that its just why don't we try and compensate by making more erratas or banning cards...? I don't really want to argue about banning cards again so lets take that out and leave it at erratas and restrictions.

Tim: Lets give the Tennessee national winning defense in type 1 four staple cards in the new set and watch it win nationals again. IDC if people play light D I beatz them anywii.

Gabe: What is this "defense" you speak of? And can we make them draw?

Jordan: "Yuh that would be really funny. I wud try to balance that out bro but I actually have a life and a Wife and h8te type 1 so hahahahaha.

+1'd merely for the nearly perfect representation of my thoughts, but the rest I don't necessarily agree with. The reason we don't (and shouldn't) have too many erratas, is that A) it takes a long time for all of the aftereffects of an errata to be ironed out and solutions presented, and even so, it doesn't always work out (I think most people who have been on the boards long enough know the perfect example for that point, so I won't spell it out--that way maybe STAMP won't pop in here and complain... ;)). Additionally, the more erratas there are, the less accessible the game becomes for old and new players alike. It's hard enough for players to remeber the intricacies of all of the abilities, but to then remember a host of cards that don't do exactly what they say. Banning cards is a whole other debate, and regardless of all other pros and cons, it is one that the game designer and owner has been unwilling to consider up to this point.

I will say that I think that the playtesting team has done a better job of getting correct wording and more balanced cards in recent past. Clearly I might be a tad biased, but that is the impression I got from the community over most of the last season, following the release of the new set. But I also agree that mistakes will happen, and not all cards will be fully vetted before the release, and we have the errata option if needed. But I think that it should be used as sparingly as possible.

I thought that cards couldn't be protected from themselves.  In which case, isn't all this moot?

I thought that cards couldn't be protected from themselves.  In which case, isn't all this moot?

Redoubter indicated that that's only true for characters, which is a distinction I didn't know existed, but I trust that some people have heard things I haven't.

Redoubter is correct, that guy seems to know the obscure rules for some reason, likely OCD or the need for more things to do around the house.

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