Cactus Game Design Message Boards

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

See, here's another example of things not adding up quite right...

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.

And how can Thad protect from drawing if nothing else can?

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.

The wiki says JT is a restrict, which fits with the definition of restrict provided.  Does that make a difference?

Quote from: Gabe on May 21, 2015, 01:43:06 AM

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.

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:  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 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 and Thaddeus 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.

Is Wall of Protection a restrict? I do not see it on the Official Errata list.