Cactus Game Design Message Boards

My opponent takes my site with Land Dispute (SA not important).  He then attacks with a hero and adds my site to battle to gain access.  I block with a Philistine character with Foreign Sword equipped.  Can I target the site my opponent is using (which I am the owner of) with Foreign Sword?

Foreign Sword - evil (RA2)
Type: Evil Enh. • Brigade: Red • Ability: 3 / 2 • Class: Weapon • Special Ability: Negate an opponent's evil or neutral card. If used by a Canaanite or Philistine, you may return that card to the top of owner's deck.

What's the distinction for "opponents," does it mean "cards opponents own and control?"

I.e.: Can I harm your Angel'd Gideon with your EC that I swapped for with SWS?

Right, I know that, I'm asking about wording like "Protect Gideon from opponents." Is that just shorthand for "opponents' cards"?

"Protect from opponents" is shorthand for "Protect from cards opponents control." I think Bryon mentioned that somewhere when the new set was released, along with "negate Heroes" = "negate special abilities on heroes."

That seems inconsistent with the Foreign Sword ruling at the start of this thread, then. Is there a reason "opponents" has a different default than "opponent's"?

Foreign sword says "Opponent's card," where Angel Under the Oak protects from "Opponents"

I know they're different. I'm asking why the defaults are different:
"opponents" means "cards opponents control"
"opponent's(') cards" means "cards opponent(s) owns and controls"

It seems odd to treat different instances of the same word with different definitions, and it's confusing to boot.

The only thing I can give you is that "opponent's" speaks to possession of the card while "opponents" speaks of the players.

Quote from: Praeceps on March 16, 2012, 08:56:30 PM

The only thing I can give you is that "opponent's" speaks to possession of the card while "opponents" speaks of the players.

I guess that makes sense, it just seems an odd level of specificity.

The difference, in actual playing of games, would be very small.  Here is an example of a difference:

I attack with AUTO, exchange for Gideon.  My opponent blocks with Gomer, bands to my Enchanter, then discards a Pale Green enhancement to return Gideon.  AUTO's protection stops this, even though Enchanter is not owned by my opponent.

If AUTO instead said "protect Gideon from opponent's cards", then I think Enchanter could return Gideon, because Enchanter is not my opponent's (as defined by ownership + control).  But you can see that the times when this would actually make a difference are extremely minimal.