Cactus Game Design Message Boards

So, to be clear, JT IS a restrict and not a protect?

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.

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.

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?
 

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)