Cactus Game Design Message Boards

If I play Mayhem and Opponent has Jerusalem Tower up, does he draw?

Jerusalem Tower
Good Fortress
Nehemiah 12:38
No Opponent may remove a card from holder's draw pile. Draw Pile may still be searched and/or shuffled.

I asked since WoP uses similar wording and it stops you from presenting a new blocker (like w/ Goliath) and there aren't many forced draws in Redemption.

Quote from: Professoralstad on June 18, 2012, 03:57:23 PM

I think there was a ruling that said that forced draws were some sort of exception for JTower, but I don't recall what justification we used other than it would make JTower unplayable. Not entirely sure if it should stay that way, but I believe that is the current rule.

I thought it was because it would have dealt a heavy blow to both Luke+John offense and Abom defense.  It would also make mayhem OP'd. 

It seems it would make sense if drawing is done by a player, not by an opponent. You may be forcing your opponent to do something, but they're the one doing the action, not the opponent.

That would change WoP too, since Goliath's not forcing a Hero to battle, your bringing him to battle.

Quote from: Ring Wraith on June 18, 2012, 07:32:45 PM

It seems it would make sense if drawing is done by a player, not by an opponent. You may be forcing your opponent to do something, but they're the one doing the action, not the opponent.

I thought we had ruled both Goliath and others (i.e. JT vs. Revealer LS) were based on targetting by opponents' cards. I think we still have too much uncertainty and inconsistency with hese rulings.

Now you've immortalized my grammar mistake. Lame.

Revealer is definitely done by the Revealer, which is why JT protects. The drawing on Mayhem is forcing your opponent to do something. I don't know a better way to put how I view the situation.

I don't think I ever agreed with the Goliath vs. Wall of Protection ruling, but I liked it. 

Quote from: YourMathTeacher on June 18, 2012, 07:52:32 PM

Quote from: Ring Wraith on June 18, 2012, 07:32:45 PM

It seems it would make sense if drawing is done by a player, not by an opponent. You may be forcing your opponent to do something, but their the one doing the action, not the opponent.

I thought we had ruled both Goliath and others (i.e. JT vs. Revealer LS) were based on targetting by opponents' cards. I think we still have too much uncertainty and inconsistency with hese rulings.

 

I'm all for a fort like JTower being used against more than Egyptians and Confusion...does anyone even run with Gabriel or Amasai anymore ? And a counter to Mayhem in the form of a fortress is not necessarily a bad idea...how many games have you lost due to your opponent upsetting the strategies you built with your hand?

That's not a counter to Mayhem, that's making Mayhem broken. They're arguing you can't draw if you have JT and your opponent plays Mayhem.

Right, forgot the part that the shuffle would still happen...my mistake...

I'm going from the presedant of Goliath/WoP which says that Goliath kicks a Hero back and you have WoP then you can't add a Hero to battle, even though you are doing it. It doesn't matter who does the action, it's who played the card that forced the action.

In every case it's the person who caused the ability, but for drawing there is a bottom-up rule that it's the person carrying out the ability.

I want to say no, or then change WoP.

Quote from: YourMathTeacher on June 21, 2012, 01:18:47 PM

Quote from: Minister Polarius on June 21, 2012, 01:06:09 PM

In every case it's the person who caused the ability, but for drawing there is a bottom-up rule that it's the person carrying out the ability.

So drawing is the only exception?

Correct, and it's not an exception so much as a conflicting ruling that's been superimposed over the top-down ruling. An exception would be stated in the top-down ruling itself.

What is that conflicting rule and/or where is the bottom-up rule found that you are referencing?  As it would be an exception to every other case (WoP and Goliath, Set Fire not being able to hit cards protected from opponents even though the holder discards them, etc.) regarding protection and targets, you need to show where it comes from, please.

He's saying that the exception of Draw Abilities hasn't come from an Elder.

What I'm saying is that I would need to see where it comes from.  I've never seen a bottom-up rule on this or a relevant ruling, but of course that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

I don't necessarily doubt Pol thinks that his statement is based in rulings, but I do need to see proof is all.

It is been ruled that way ever since Luke/John heroes were released.  It was ruled previously that JTower does not stop the forced draw.  Until I see an elder rule otherwise that is the known ruling(at least at my tournaments).  I will attempt to find the ancient thread it is buried in.

Update found the link here: One elder ruled it that JTower does not stop forced draw.  We still need a second elder but that was how it was played back when abom made that ruling important.

I agree that we need a second elder, mostly because that thread is before JT became a protect and we had rulings like Wall vs Goliath.  Also, Gabe's post did not actually address this issue (an opponent forcing you to draw from your draw pile).  He responded as if the question involved one player drawing from another player's draw pile.

So I agree we could use some clarification one way or the other

There is nowhere that says 2 elders need to rule on something for it to be official. If 1 elder makes a ruling on something that is unclear in the REG and rule book, that is the official ruling. Rob's post said that if 2 elders rule on something it can be read with a higher degree of confidence, not that they must to make it official. The reality is, if 1 elder rules on something, and no other elders say anything, it's probably because they are in agreement.

I would have to disagree with you here, Ken. We have been using the 2-Elder standard for a while now because there were several times that one Elder ruled and another disagreed, sometimes days later. I think the 2-Elder Rule is good for checks-and-balances.

With that said, it appears that the current standard is to rule these situations as the SA that initiates the action is who is taking the action, except for drawing. Drawing is an exception because we do not want OP situations that seem to only occur when SAs are coupled with drawing. I can live with that, I was just not aware that it was an overarching rule in these scenarios.

Good to know! Thanks for clearing this up, everyone.