Author Topic: Kinda the Opposite of a Restrict... (Read 2374 times)

EmJayBee83 · « **on:** April 14, 2011, 11:46:55 AM »

Now that restrict has set the precedent that cards can target a player (as opposed to targeting other cards), what about the opposite effect where a player must do something?

For example, let's say I have Simon the Zealot in play and his SA has been activated. My opponent sets aside his heroes with Feast of Trumpets. What happens when the heroes come back into play? Am I forced to remove cards from my hand and draw new ones from the deck or does Simon's SA protect against that? (I'm not sure if hand or deck made a difference here so I picked Simon and Feast of Trumpets 'cause they both cover both.)

Simon the Zealot SA: 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.

Feast of Trumpets SA: Set aside all of your human Heroes for one turn. On return, choose a number from 1 to 4. All players must place that number of cards from hand beneath own draw pile and draw an equal number of cards.

ChristianSoldier · « **Reply #1 on:** April 14, 2011, 12:08:29 PM »

My understanding of the situation would be once the player using Feast of Trumpets would pick a number and the player whose hand is protected would just draw the number of cards because he can't put any beneath the deck since their hand is protected from opponent's cards (which Feast of Trumpets is)

Minister Polarius · « **Reply #2 on:** April 14, 2011, 12:19:00 PM »

Having Zealotes active will stop FoT from affecting you at all.

ChristianSoldier · « **Reply #3 on:** April 14, 2011, 12:31:25 PM »

Quote from: Minister Polarius on April 14, 2011, 12:19:00 PM

Having Zealotes active will stop FoT from affecting you at all.

After reading Feast of Trumpets again I would agree, I didn't notice the wording "draw an equal number of cards"

Professoralstad · « **Reply #4 on:** April 14, 2011, 01:15:15 PM »

Quote from: ChristianSoldier on April 14, 2011, 12:31:25 PM

Quote from: Minister Polarius on April 14, 2011, 12:19:00 PM
Having Zealotes active will stop FoT from affecting you at all.

After reading Feast of Trumpets again I would agree, I didn't notice the wording "draw an equal number of cards"

I agree as well.

Bryon · « **Reply #5 on:** April 14, 2011, 01:20:38 PM »

Agreed. In general, if one card says you can't do something, and another one tells you you must do it, the one that says you CAN'T trumps the other one.

STAMP · « **Reply #6 on:** April 14, 2011, 01:23:44 PM »

So...

Restrict > Must do

but...

Restrict < Must do w/Regardless

??

Professoralstad · « **Reply #7 on:** April 14, 2011, 01:32:20 PM »

Quote from: STAMP on April 14, 2011, 01:23:44 PM

So...

Restrict > Must do

but...

Restrict < Must do w/Regardless

??

Not sure what restrict really has to do with this question. FoT doesn't really target players in the same way a restrict does, it targets 1-4 cards in hand chosen by each player. If Simon is out, then it can't target the cards in hand.

EmJayBee83 · « **Reply #8 on:** April 14, 2011, 01:40:05 PM »

Thanks. I know that's how I have always played it, but I just wanted to make sure. (Because "All players must..." sounded a heckuva lot like FoT is targeting a player to me. And since protects don't stop restricts because of that targeting...)

Quote from: Professoralstad on April 14, 2011, 01:32:20 PM

Not sure what restrict really has to do with this question. FoT doesn't really target players in the same way a restrict does, it targets 1-4 cards in hand chosen by each player.

Put simply why does "No opponent can..." means that a card is targeting your opponent, but "All players must..." means you are targeting your hand? You really don't see why I was asking about this (besides making sure that an uber-powerful top secret StZ + FoT combo would work)?

Mwuhahahahaha...Now the uber-powerful top secret StZ + FoT combo* is unstoppable, unstoppable I tell ya'.

*If anyone has an uber-powerful top secret StZ + FoT combo that I could borrow or rent, please let me know.

STAMP · « **Reply #9 on:** April 14, 2011, 01:47:32 PM »

I guess I got the impression that Simon the Zealot was categorized as a restrict based on the original question. Is he just a protect?

And my question (if Simon was a restrict) is whether "regardless" trumps "restrict"?

CountFount · « **Reply #10 on:** April 14, 2011, 02:07:00 PM »

Matt I got your deck. I accept paypal $10000 please. Very Top Secret. Shhh

Professoralstad · « **Reply #11 on:** April 14, 2011, 07:13:42 PM »

Quote from: STAMP on April 14, 2011, 01:47:32 PM

I guess I got the impression that Simon the Zealot was categorized as a restrict based on the original question. Is he just a protect?

And my question (if Simon was a restrict) is whether "regardless" trumps "restrict"?

He is just a protect. Restrict stops your opponents from performing "targetless" game actions: like making rescue attempts, drawing during draw phase, playing territory class enhancements, activating artifacts, etc. Which is why cards like Burial Shroud, Besieging the City, and Darius' Decree are all classified as restricts. Simon the Zealot does limit the options of what your opponent can do in a sense, but he only stops cards from being targeted.

ChristianSoldier · « **Reply #12 on:** April 14, 2011, 10:19:52 PM »

Quote from: STAMP on April 14, 2011, 01:47:32 PM

And my question (if Simon was a restrict) is whether "regardless" trumps "restrict"?

Regardless trumps everything, hence the term regardless.

If a card says "Regardless of immunity..." (like Plague of Frogs) then the immunity doesn't matter, if a card would say "Regardless of restricts..." the restrictions of actions wouldn't matter.

This is why I think Regardless should only be used very carefully.

TheHobbit13 · « **Reply #13 on:** April 14, 2011, 10:25:56 PM »

I still think there is something fishy about targets and protection in Redemption. Take sinning hand as another example. It makes the most sense to say that I can discard half of my hand ( while stz is in play and active) because I am the one doing it not my opponent, than saying my hand cannot be targeted at all by means that are made up. This is the exact same logic behind the lotr ruling that BRC can hit Siege Engine.

BRC
http://lotrtcgdb.com/pages/LOTR08003.html

Siege Engine
http://lotrtcgdb.com/pages/LOTR05060.html

The concept seems universal.

Minister Polarius · « **Reply #14 on:** April 15, 2011, 12:46:20 AM »

You're only Discarding them in that you're choosing which ones are Discarded. Your opponent's card is the one targeting and carrying out the action.

EmJayBee83 · « **Reply #15 on:** April 15, 2011, 07:33:36 AM »

Quote from: Professoralstad on April 14, 2011, 07:13:42 PM

Restrict stops your opponents from performing "targetless" game actions: like making rescue attempts, drawing during draw phase, playing territory class enhancements, activating artifacts, etc. Which is why cards like Burial Shroud, Besieging the City, and Darius' Decree are all classified as restricts.

Thank you, this all makes sense now.

Quote from: CountFount on April 14, 2011, 02:07:00 PM

Matt I got your deck. I accept paypal $10000 please. Very Top Secret. Shhh

Craig, I tried to send you the money, but I didn't even finish typing in your e-mail address when the PayPal scam filter kicked in. Apparently PayPal has the contact information for any number of people who would be willing to sell me a deck that is better than the one you are peddling. I will be getting an outline of the combo (and half of over $20 million) from Dr. Clement Okon, a nice man from Nigeria, as soon as I send him my bank account number.

CountFount · « **Reply #16 on:** April 15, 2011, 08:25:09 AM »

Your skinny and Smart! Oh well. In my dealings with Mr Okon, to be ensure a secure transition I worked directly with his lawyers, Dewey, Cheatim and Howe. Great bunch of Guys!

TheHobbit13 · « **Reply #17 on:** April 15, 2011, 09:59:49 AM »

Quote from: Minister Polarius on April 15, 2011, 12:46:20 AM

You're only Discarding them in that you're choosing which ones are Discarded. Your opponent's card is the one targeting and carrying out the action.

The ability is giving me the option to discard half of my hand. My opponent in no way is discarding any cards from my hand, he is removing me from the game. It is irrelvant that my opponent has played the card, it is what I am doing .Moreover sinning hand really doesn't target cards in hand, it targets characters from remove, which then can be insteaded by an opponent who targets cards in his hand to discard.

Gabe · « **Reply #18 on:** April 15, 2011, 11:26:22 AM »

Pol is correct. You can't twist the words around so that your hand can be protected and allow you to discard for an opponent's card at the same time.

TheHobbit13 · « **Reply #19 on:** April 15, 2011, 03:20:06 PM »

That is fine if that is the way it is (I already knew that was the way it is) I was just saying that the rule in general is odd and backing it up with a counterexample from a more established ccg.

Professoralstad · « **Reply #20 on:** April 15, 2011, 03:57:26 PM »

Quote from: TheHobbit13 on April 15, 2011, 03:20:06 PM

That is fine if that is the way it is (I already knew that was the way it is) I was just saying that the rule in general is odd and backing it up with a counterexample from ~~a more established~~ an out of print ccg.

Fixed. Zing.

News:

Author Topic: Kinda the Opposite of a Restrict... (Read 2374 times)

TheHobbit13

TheHobbit13

TheHobbit13