Cactus Game Design Message Boards
Redemption® Collectible Trading Card Game HQ => Official Rules & Errata => Ruling Questions => Topic started by: Praeceps on May 15, 2015, 10:42:27 AM
-
If I have JT in territory and my opponent plays RaR, do I still draw 4?
Repentance and Retribution- If used by a Luke Hero, convert a human Evil Character to a gold brigade Hero. Cannot be negated by an evil card. If rescue attempt is successful, opponent must draw four cards.
Jerusalem Tower - No opponent may remove a card from holder's draw pile. Draw pile may still be searched and/or shuffled.
-
The ruling as far as I know it is that forced-draws (like MtM and Mayhem) are not protected from by JT, that's the ruling that we have currently.
-
I believe that ruling is based off the idea that JT stops your opponent from removing a card from your deck (i.e. Gabriel), but in the other cases you are removing a card(s) from your deck.
-
First sorry about the title, was going to ask about mayhem first, but figured I should work on a foundation first :)
Why are forced draws not protected against? Neither JT, specifically, nor protect have a caveat that addresses this. I understand that it would be bad to not be able to draw, but it also is bad not to be able to present a hero from territory to battle if I have WoP and Goliath just finished kicking my in-battle hero's out.
-
Not the first time this has been asked, it won't be the last, but I'm fairly certain this rule will stay the same. It was given working off of the premises that YMT gave above, mainly, and you'll probably find a bunch of the JT threads littered through this board with all sides of the argument/discussion. I'll maybe try to dig some of that up tomorrow for you/others who undoubtedly have the same question.
-
FWIW, I am no fan of the Goliath ruling. ;)
-
It just doesn't seem to be consistent to me. If it's Goliath's ability that is bringing in a new hero then surely it would be your opponent's ability causing the draw. If you are the one physically presenting the hero but you can be protected from it because it's your opponent's ability then why when you are physically drawing because of your opponent's ability is it not also granted that protection? I could see the argument that JT doesn't stop the draw because you are physically drawing it not your opponent if JT was a restrict, but it isn't, it's a protect like WoP.
I don't really expect the rule to change, I just don't see why two similar (at least to me) cases are ruled to result in two different effects.
-
What about Simon the Zealot? Does he protect from forced draw?
-
What about Simon the Zealot? Does he protect from forced draw?
No, you cannot protect from draw. You can restrict it. You can instead it. But you cannot protect from it.
-
I know Thaddeus protects decks from opponents drawing, I don't see the difference.
-
I know Thaddeus protects decks from opponents drawing, I don't see the difference.
See, here's another example of things not adding up quite right...
-
Can we get a response to TheHobbit's point, please. We have an elder saying you can't protect from draw, and then an example where an ability has been ruled to protect at least one deck from drawing.
-
The Elders have discussed this before, though I will check to see what additional thoughts there are. It hasn't been ignored, in case you were worried.
To my knowledge at this point, no, Simon would no protect from forced draws used by your opponent based on previous rulings and precedent.
-
Whats the logic behind that ruling?
-
And how can Thad protect from drawing if nothing else can?
-
And how can Thad protect from drawing if nothing else can?
If Gabe is to be believed Thad doesn't protect from drawing.
-
When the elders ruled Jerusalem Tower as a protect instead of a prevent, one of the topics we discussed is whether or not it would protect from forced draw. The conclusion is that it does not. The reason given is that you perform the game action of drawing the cards from the deck, even if it's your opponent's ability that causes the draw.
The subsequent REG entry that resulted from the discussion is:
Players draw exclusively from their own deck; your opponent(s) never draw cards from your deck.
-
How then does Simon the Zealot protect your hand from Entrapping Pharisee? You are performing the game action of discarding a card from your hand not your opponent. Or why does he protect from retribution soul. This situation parallels forced draw vs JT.
And its not the most counter intuitive ruling if you think about it. The source of the target is all that ought to matter. This has come up in multiple ccgs I have played and it always goes back to the source of the ability, which is the most logical ruling.
-
The wiki says JT (http://redemption.wikia.com/wiki/Jerusalem_Tower_%28Pa%29) is a restrict, which fits with the definition of restrict (http://redemption.wikia.com/wiki/Restrict) provided. Does that make a difference?
-
The reason given is that you perform the game action of drawing the cards from the deck, even if it's your opponent's ability that causes the draw.
I think that this is what is causing the inconsistency. We currently rule that my own Wall of Protection stops me from bringing in a new hero when my opponent blocks with promo Goliath. The rationale was that Goliath's ability was bringing my hero into battle, even though I am the one physically choosing and presenting a new hero. I don't see how a forced draw ability is any different.
-
The reason given is that you perform the game action of drawing the cards from the deck, even if it's your opponent's ability that causes the draw.
I think that this is what is causing the inconsistency. We currently rule that my own Wall of Protection stops me from bringing in a new hero when my opponent blocks with promo Goliath. The rationale was that Goliath's ability was bringing my hero into battle, even though I am the one physically choosing and presenting a new hero. I don't see how a forced draw ability is any different.
This is what has always been my sticking point.
-
Redoubter is working on an official response and announcement on behalf of the elder team. When he posts it, know that I completely agree with and support what he has to say on the topic.
-
Indeed I was crafting a response, and ensuring that it is correct with all other rules/rulings. It does update some statements from earlier in this thread, but is also very comprehensive based on the questions asked. That said, here is the ruling in its entirety:
Facts relevant:
Jerusalem Tower (http://redemption.wikia.com/wiki/Jerusalem_Tower_(Pa)): No opponent may remove a card from holder's draw pile. Draw pile may still be searched and/or shuffled.
Note: Any "Play-As" or "Errata" on the Wiki or anywhere else that is not on the Official Errata Listing (http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/redemption-official-rules/errata-reworded-special-abilities/) is not an actual errata.A draw ability targets cards that are in the deck of the player that activated the draw ability.
Players draw exclusively from their own deck; your opponent(s) never draw cards from your deck.
Ruling from the Elders: This is a restrict ability, and not a protect:The phrases “player may not”, "no player may" and "no ability card may be played" mean the same as “restrict”.
Putting all of this together, Jerusalem Tower restricts opponents from removing any cards from your deck. However, per Draw, no opponent may 'draw' cards from your deck. This is a condition of Draw itself, and it means that if your opponent used a forced-draw on you, JT does not restrict it, since they (the opponent) are not attempting to remove those cards from your deck through a Draw ability (per the definition of Draw); you are the one doing the removal, even though the source is an opponent's card. Restrict does not limit targeting, like Protect, but rather limits game actions, like being able to draw. Since JT is a restrict, your opponent is only restricted from actions that would have themselves remove cards from your deck, not from causing you to do so.
This is a situation unique to Jerusalem Tower, because it does not protect your deck from "opponent's cards," which would protect from targeting at all, but rather it restricts "removal" by a game action or effect of the opponent, which is not something Draw on an opponent's card can do.
On the other side of the coin, you have cards like Simon the Zealot (http://redemption.wikia.com/wiki/Simon_the_Zealot_(Di)) and Thaddeus (http://redemption.wikia.com/wiki/Thaddeus_(Di)) which protect from everything from those sources. They don't just stop removal, they protect decks, period. Per Draw, cards to be drawn are targeted. As the entire deck is being protected, all cards in it are also protected from the sources indicated (opponent's cards or EC of specific sizes, specifically). A card protected from a source cannot be made a target by any ability on that source, and so both of these cards protect from forced-draws as well (since the card with Draw must target and cannot).
TL;DR: JT's wording about "removal" and as a restrict mean it does not stop targeting generally and cannot stop forced draws because your opponent isn't doing the removal. This is a very unique case. General protection of decks can stop forced draws by stopping targeting.
-
Thanks, that makes more sense. It would be nice for some consistency though, is there a reason why restrict doesn't limit players from targeting?
-
Is Wall of Protection a restrict? I do not see it on the Official Errata list.
-
Wall of Protection:
Place this site in your territory. No character in your territory may be brought into battle by an opponent.
Pretty sure that's a protect. If it was worded the other way - "No opponent may bring a character in your territory into battle" - I believe that would be a restrict.
-
So, to be clear, JT IS a restrict and not a protect?
-
Thanks, that makes more sense. It would be nice for some consistency though, is there a reason why restrict doesn't limit players from targeting?
Because it isn't Protect, which stops targeting.A restrict ability reduces the number of game action choices available to a player.
All restrict abilities are ongoing. A restrict ability targets the player that becomes restricted.
Restrict only limits game actions available, it does not stop targeting.
Wall of Protection:
Place this site in your territory. No character in your territory may be brought into battle by an opponent.
Pretty sure that's a protect. If it was worded the other way - "No opponent may bring a character in your territory into battle" - I believe that would be a restrict.
This is 100% correct. It protects the characters, it does not restrict the opponent.
So, to be clear, JT IS a restrict and not a protect?
Yes.
-
Yes but the definition for restrict could have just as easily stopped targeting. I still think the source of the card is removing the cards from the deck therefore out to be restricted from doing so. Yes you may be the one that physically draws the cards but that is because an opponent caused you to do so. But I am not going to argue or try to make Jerusalem Tower better anymore.
-
At MN State, Justin and I agreed and ruled what Redoubter posted, forced draw can be protected against.
The difference between Restrict and Protect is subtle but important. Restrict, as it suggests based on the REG wording, targets players instead of cards, and limits what they can do. During a draw ability, no other player draws the cards, so JT won't stop it as has been mentioned. Protect targets cards, so it is targeting the cards in your deck with its protect. Protect limits targets, and thus if your cards are protected from an opponent, their abilities cannot target those cards, regardless of who would actually be performing the action.
Right now one of the best reasons to use deck protection is to counter Abom, so JT may not be very useful. However, I think this interpretation is logical, consistent, and still doesn't make JT a liability vs. Mayhem for anyone who might be inclined to use it.
-
Jerusalem Tower - No opponent may remove a card from holder's draw pile. Draw pile may still be searched and/or shuffled.
Restrict, as it suggests based on the REG wording, targets players instead of cards, and limits what they can do. During a draw ability, no other player draws the cards, so JT won't stop it as has been mentioned.
I'm trying to wrap my head around this. So let's look at two separate abilities, both found on actual cards:
1. "Search opponent's deck and discard a card."
2. "Each opponent must discard the top card of their deck (put lost souls in play instead)."
Assuming my opponent uses each ability and I have JT in territory, your reasoning leads me to believe that ability 1 is stopped by JT, since it says that my opponent carries out the action, but ability 2 is not stopped, since it says that I carry out the action.
It just seems so counterintuitive that my opponent can use a special ability that targets my deck and removes a card from it, and somehow it gets around JT, simply based on which player the card instructs to actually "carry out the ability".
-
Something is going to be counterintuitive no matter which way it is ruled. Either the card you mentioned (deck discard LS, I believe?) can get around JT, or you can be restricted from performing an action (such as drawing) by your card that only targets your opponent(s). I believe that it is more logical to go with counterintuitive option 1.
Understandably, it is confusing, but due to the fact that there are so many better ways to stop opponents from doing nasty stuff to your deck than JT, it is very likely that it will become increasingly obsolete, so hopefully the ruling will have little to no bearing on the game. And if it is ever reprinted to be more useful, you can be sure that it will have much better wording that won't lead to the 13 or so years of confusion it has created.
-
Something is going to be counterintuitive no matter which way it is ruled. Either the card you mentioned (deck discard LS, I believe?) can get around JT, or you can be restricted from performing an action (such as drawing) by your card that only targets your opponent(s). I believe that it is more logical to go with counterintuitive option 1.
First, I'm not sure what you have in mind where "you can be restricted from performing an action (such as drawing) by your card that only targets your opponent(s)". Maybe an example would help me understand your position better.
*****
I've seen the Goliath/Wall of Protection interaction confuse a lot of players, but ultimately it makes sense because Goliath is the one adding the new hero to battle. (Ironically, if Wall of Protection was a Restrict instead of a Protect, Goliath would not combo with it, because Goliath lets the opponent choose the hero.) As it is ruled, a player's JT stops his opponent's Seeker of the Lost, but not his opponent's Revealer LS, simply due to card wording (even though they are the same ability). It's hard to imagine something more counterintuitive than this.
I just think it would be simpler to say "Abilities are always performed by the player controlling the ability". This way, Restrict abilities would be treated exactly the same as Protect abilities. Meaning, all you need to do is trace the ability to its source; if it comes from your opponent's ability (i.e., they control the ability, and are trying to activate it), then Protect and Restrict abilities can limit that player and that player's abilities alone.
If JT were played this way, then it's quite simple to see if JT stops an ability.
1. Is the ability used and controlled by an opponent? If yes...
2. Does it remove a card from my deck? If yes, then that ability doesn't happen.
Is there some broken combination of cards that arises if abilities were always treated as being played by their controller, even if they say "Opponent must..."? I don't think JT stopping yourself from your opponent's forced draw meets this qualification; is there something else?
-
Jmhartz, I think there's actually confusing in your post because the issue is with Draw, in that Draw does not allow opponents to 'draw' cards for you from your deck, you are the only one who is taking that action. An add to battle or other ability is 'being done by your opponent' when it is your opponent's card, but Draw is its own unique case.
The combination of Restrict and Draw make this ruling end up how it is, as detailed in my previous posts.
-
I think the point is that it's counter-intuitive for one single special ability/game action to behave completely different in this situation than every other special ability/game action in the entire rest of the game. All other abilities are based on the source of the ability except draw. There are plenty of cases (characters shifting locations during battle, capturing to opponent's land of bondage, etc.) where the owner technically physically moves the card but the opponent is the one actually "doing" the special ability, I just wonder why draw has been defined differently. (I skimmed the first page so if I missed the explanation of why draw works this way, please forgive me and point me to it)
-
Part of the reason is to be absolutely clear that only the owner of a deck may draw from it. Also, I may not have been around at the time that this was all initially hashed out, but I imagine that part of the reason it is still there is because any restriction of decks from opponents (particularly their evil cards) makes the cards that restriction is on absolutely useless (meaning, we can't print "restrict opponent from doing stuff to your deck" since that means the card will never be played in a game with Mayhem if that means you will be left with 0 cards, and this includes JT if the rule were changed).