Cactus Game Design Message Boards

I think what a lot of people are having issues with, myself included, is that some protect abilities in the past, like cards that protect from "discard" vs cards that say they protect from "discard abilities", have been ruled differently based on whether a card actually had a discard "ability" using that exact word, compared to just any ability that results in a discard, for example decreasing below 0 toughness.

In the example of discard abilities, I believe it has been ruled in the past that a Card protecting from "discard abilities" only protects from abilities that explicitly say "discard [protected card]", while cards that protect from just "discard" in general have been ruled to protect from game rules such as being decreased below 0 toughness or even losing a battle.

Now, a decrease ability is a decrease "ability" that can result in a discard by game rule if your toughness is reduced below zero, and an exchange ability is an exchange "ability" that is also defined as an implied "search" by game rule and the definition of search.

The perceived inconsistency is when you have a card like Nazareth that explicitly says "search abilities" that is said to also protect from cards that have an exchange "ability" because exchange is ruled to have an implied search based on the definition of what a search is by game rule.

Now, this may not be a direct parallel in abilities, but to me it seems pretty similar. In the first case we have cards that say "protect from discard abilities" being ruled to only protect from cards that specifically say "discard" and cards that say "protect from discard" protecting from both discard abilities on cards and game rules resulting in a discard, but on the other hand we have Nazareth which says "protect from search abilities" that is being ruled to protect from both search abilities explicitly worded as such and exchange abilities that have an implied search which is defined as such by the rules.

It may have just been an oversight in wording at some point to have cards that say both "protected from X ability" and "protected from X" but is has been ruled in the past that they are played in two totally different ways.

I believe that the bigger question is whether or not an "implied" ability is so central to the function of a card that it actually counts as that ability in addition to its printed ability, or whether an implied ability is merely a definition given to an ability by game rule and is different then a more specific search "ability".

I don't mean to make anyone mad or throw more wood on the fire in relation to what's already been said. This is just the way I see it and think that there may be other people who hold a similar view based on what's been said.

Thanks Gabe! If nothing is expected to change before Nats, can we get a clear listing of how cards will be treated at Nats?

Naz and Music Leader are both likely to see play so it would be nice to know ahead of time how they will be ruled to work at Nats. Naz (apparently) has been ruled to stop Exchange so I assume it will continue to do so, but will ML then also trigger off exchange because it has the same wording as Naz?

Music Leader will trigger off an exchange  to deck or discard pile ability.

Have people been playing that it doesn't? Pretty sure that in every game I've played in person or online this season everyone has been under the impression that an exchange to deck or discard is a search. If I exchange to hand (AutO to Gideon for example), that's not a search.

Quote

Music Leader will trigger off an exchange  to deck or discard pile ability.

Have people been playing that it doesn't? Pretty sure that in every game I've played in person or online this season everyone has been under the impression that an exchange to deck or discard is a search. If I exchange to hand (AutO to Gideon for example), that's not a search.

I have not been to any tournaments this season (or even at all since the T2 only last year) to know how any groups have been ruling it, but I know myself and some others who have posted in threads in the last few months didn't think that ML would trigger off an exchange (or that Naz stopped exchange either). For me I know this was because of exactly what Noah explained above, that I didn't know "implied search" qualified certain non-"search" abilities as "search abilities."

No. You are allowed to change artifacts by game rule.

I have not been to any tournaments this season (or even at all since the T2 only last year) to know how any groups have been ruling it, but I know myself and some others who have posted in threads in the last few months didn't think that ML would trigger off an exchange (or that Naz stopped exchange either). For me I know this was because of exactly what Noah explained above, that I didn't know "implied search" qualified certain non-"search" abilities as "search abilities."

I am also baffled why some think the Naz stopping Exchange is so universally understood. In all the tournaments I've been to since Naz's release (which, admittedly, is probably less than a dozen but most were big-ticket tournaments), and in all the people I've played on Lackey and RTS, I've never once heard of Naz stopping Exchange to deck and apparently neither had any of my opponents.

I have never seen anyone try and use AUTO to fish a Judge out of deck when Naz was in play, except for when they didn't notice Naz was in play.  I've always seen Naz played to stop exchange, and the players I've played against on ROOT have played this way as well. 

So I did some searching. Admittedly, Redoubter seems to be correct that this has been the ruling as long as Naz has existed. And both Pol and I evidently have terrible memories since we both agreed that Naz stops Exchange back in 2011 in this thread.

That doesn't necessarily mean it's the best ruling just because it's status quo, though (there have been several long term rulings changed in my tenure on the boards). I still don't like it, but if discard pile ends up changed to a known location (i.e.: you can look through your discard whenever you want), as I really hope it does, that would alleviate a lot of my issues with the whole exchange/implied search/Naz/HSR thing.

Sadly, I also agree with tripleplay on this one. "Just because we've always done it that" way is horrible reasoning to continue on with a ruling that is being questioned by so many; so please, let's not rest on that as the sole reason not to change anything.

Quote from: Praeceps on May 17, 2016, 06:14:38 PM

"Just because we've always done it that" way is horrible reasoning to continue on with a ruling that is being questioned by so many; so please, let's not rest on that as the sole reason not to change anything.

I'll ask you to point to where anyone has said "no we are not changing this because it is the way it has always been."  We are giving the rules as they are right now, but we are constantly discussing what to do to make the game better.

The ruling being given is currently written out in the rulebook and has been for many years, so we aren't just saying "we're playing it like this because we say so."

We also cannot just simply change the rule without examining a lot of consequences.  If Naz no longer stops exchange, or if cards specifically designed to allow "punishing" the use of cards that are heavy on the speedy exchange, then what is that going to do to the game?  We've had untold pages of threads complaining about AutO, and yet that's what would get a huge buff if we decided to go change the way the rules current work and are written.

I'm not sure why this has suddenly become a huge issue for people, considering the ruling has been well-established for so long, but there are a few things those people with a problem with this need to understand:

• We are not ignoring any recommendations for changes or requests for rule changes.
• We cannot simply up and change this, or any, rule without major consequences.
• We are examining how changes to search, as well as many other things, could affect, benefit, or harm the game.

To claim that we're just trying to stifle the thoughts on this, or to say that "it's not changing because it's always been like this," is both incorrect and unfair to those who put a lot of work into this game.

honestly, as much as i do want certain restrictions lifted, i am appreciative of the great attention to detail and consideration of standing rules prior to changing them.

thank you

I never said that was your reason, I said please don't let status quo be the only reason.
...
What my point boils down to is "status quo" is a fine supporting argument, but IMO should not be your central argument.

Then you should have nothing to worry about, because that has never been the basis for me advocating any position for rules.  The other Judges can attest to that 
Seriously though, absolutely nothing we have said has indicated that this ruling is just going to stand because it is currently in place, and that's why I take issue with what you said.  There is the implication that it is the central reason, and frankly, it just is not.  We have the status quo because of many good reasons, which I outlined previously, and which we have to take into account whenever we are exploring a potential change.

As for saying that the Naz ruling is based on how the rules are written now, it would be better to say that the Naz ruling is based on an interpretation of how the rules are written since tripleplay pointed out a specific example of a ruling that seems to shine doubt on the current interpretation.

That is just not the case.  The rules clearly state that "An ability that targets a card in a deck, discard pile, or Artifact Pile that is not in a specific location in that pile, includes an implied search​of the pile for the target."  This is incredibly clear on what constitutes a search, and whether you want to debate the word "implied" there, it is still saying that Search is taking place when that happens.  There is no interpretation to be had, that's just the rule; it was put in place at the time, and maintained since then, for many reasons that I have already touched on previously.

As to the example of discard and discard abilities, that does not follow either.  These are two different abilities, search and discard, and the way that they are defined also differs.  We also don't say that activating an artifact in your Prep Phase is a search, because it is a different action, and it is not being caused by an ability, just like discard by game rule is different from discard by ability.  But since we define Search as anything meeting the criteria above (it targets a card in deck, discard, or artifact pile without it being in a specific location there), then any ability which does so includes the search; this is very different from a discard ability, which has its own definition of what constitutes one.  There is no shining of doubt because we are trying to compare things that are, by definition, different.

To recap: The rule is clearly written, not based on an unrelated interpretation of said rule.  "Status quo" is not the central reason for said ruling staying in place at this time.  I haven't seen an inconsistency yet posted for situations that can actually be compared.

There is no shining of doubt because we are trying to compare things that are, by definition, different.

I haven't seen an inconsistency yet posted for situations that can actually be compared.

I think your confusion of our stance here is that we aren't trying to compare search to discard, they are clearly different abilities that are worded, function, and are defined differently. We are trying to compare the wording: Protected from Search as opposed to Protected from Search Abilities vs. Protected from Discard as opposed to Protected from Discard Abilities. Both search sentences are ruled to result in the same thing while the two discard sentences are ruled to mean/do different things.

our point is this: Are the rulings based on wording different because discard is just that different from search and if so, how? or should the be treated the same way i.e. Protected from Search including implied searches in the protection and Protection from Search Abilities not protecting from implied searches.

Edit: Before I forget, thank you for addressing the status quo issue in your last two posts.