Author Topic: Protect precedence (Read 2471 times)

kariusvega · « **on:** April 20, 2016, 09:20:30 AM »

1. I'm assuming self control protects my deck from an opponents Nazareth meaning I would be able to search my own deck. Does it work in either order played? Ie naz first or sc first either way I still get the protection? Just wondering if there is an order required, if naz was down first is it already protecting my deck and therefore after playing sc I would not be able to search without naz first being negated? Or the other way around.

2.
If I have Areopagus and an opponent rescues with Thaddeus for 5 and I block with messenger while my deck is protected with self control, can messenger draw? Also, can he band to a protected from Thaddeus evil nt greek character in my territory?

Thanks!

Praeceps · « **Reply #1 on:** April 20, 2016, 11:57:56 AM »

1. If Self Control is in play first, then it protects your deck from an opponent's Nazzy. If nazzy is in play first, then as SC doesn't negate it, they are both protecting your deck.

2. Yes Messenger can draw and he could band to any Greek EC in your territory.

kariusvega · « **Reply #2 on:** April 20, 2016, 12:09:45 PM »

1. Cool, so both can protect at the same time? I mean I don't see why not but that's why I'm asking. I think that's where I'm really just wondering if only one can be working at a time or whatever. Kind of also a matter of when it/the game state 'checks' for protection which I'm usually used to playing as at the beginning of the phase or when the card is played.

2. Cool! That's what I figured.

Thanks for the feedback!

The Guardian · « **Reply #3 on:** April 20, 2016, 12:14:55 PM »

Quote from: Praeceps on April 20, 2016, 11:57:56 AM

1. If Self Control is in play first, then it protects your deck from an opponent's Nazzy. If nazzy is in play first, then as SC doesn't negate it, they are both protecting your deck.

My understanding is that if Nazzy is already in play when SC is played then when the next phase begins SC starts protecting your deck from the protection of Nazzy.

kariusvega · « **Reply #4 on:** April 20, 2016, 12:17:11 PM »

Quote from: The Guardian on April 20, 2016, 12:14:55 PM

Quote from: Praeceps on April 20, 2016, 11:57:56 AM
1. If Self Control is in play first, then it protects your deck from an opponent's Nazzy. If nazzy is in play first, then as SC doesn't negate it, they are both protecting your deck.

My understanding is that if Nazzy is already in play when SC is played then when the next phase begins SC starts protecting your deck from the protection of Nazzy.

yeah that's kind of what i thought but i wasn't sure

Josh · « **Reply #5 on:** April 20, 2016, 12:46:59 PM »

Quote from: The Guardian on April 20, 2016, 12:14:55 PM

Quote from: Praeceps on April 20, 2016, 11:57:56 AM
1. If Self Control is in play first, then it protects your deck from an opponent's Nazzy. If nazzy is in play first, then as SC doesn't negate it, they are both protecting your deck.

My understanding is that if Nazzy is already in play when SC is played then when the next phase begins SC starts protecting your deck from the protection of Nazzy.

While I would agree with this (actually, I think that since Protect abilities are "continuously updating", SC should start working instantaneously, but I've been overruled on this in the past), Redoubter says differently:

http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/ruling-questions/stz-vs-naz/msg540765/#msg540765

By Redoubter's reasoning, Nazareth would continue to protect your deck from Search until it is negated, at which time SC would then protect against Nazareth's "reactivation" after the negate is done.

Gabe · « **Reply #6 on:** April 20, 2016, 12:59:39 PM »

My understanding is that cards like Nazareth and Self Control remain active. I'm not aware of anything that makes cards "reactivate" each phase.

If that's correct then I agree with Redoubter. If Nazareth protected the deck prior to Self Control you need to first negate Nazareth before Self Control will stop it.

That also works in reverse. If you have Self Control and the opponent plays Nazareth, you're OK. But if Self Control is later negated (and Nazareth is not) then Nazareth takes precedence.

Crashfach2002 · « **Reply #7 on:** April 20, 2016, 01:32:31 PM »

So I'm guessing the same concept happens with the new promo lost soul. If Nazzy is out first the LS doesn't start it's protection unless Nazzy is negated? Does negation follow this logic too? The punisher LS (which negates SAs on characters of opponents that have more than 3 hero colors in play) vs the new Moses splashed in a deck. If I have 4 colors out is Moses negated by the punisher because it was our first, and the opposite, is the punisher negated by Moses if I have him out first regardless of how many colors I have out?

Same thing with site access? Salem or new Samuel vs. King's Pomp:

Salem: Once per turn, if a Hero enters battle, its owner may underdeck a card from hand to give all Heroes Site access this turn.

King's Pomp: Discard opponent's good placed Enhancements. Place on your evil King: Negate Ignore and Site Access abilities. Protect your hand from opponent's cards.

Jmbeers · « **Reply #8 on:** April 20, 2016, 03:16:50 PM »

I feel like we are over complicating this.

Whatever protect ability is active stays active unless negated.

Nazz in play first? Ok so self control still protects your deck from decking by opp but it is protected from being protected by search.

Self control in play first? SC protects from Nazz's protection. It's pretty straight forward.

It is the same principle that applies to cards with related triggers. Whichever card was in play first gets to complete first.

TheHobbit13 · « **Reply #9 on:** April 20, 2016, 04:31:11 PM »

Honestly I don't think it matters when you play self control. Anytime you play it, at that moment and then on, Self Control protects your deck from Nazareth's targeting of it. If Nazareth cannot target the deck it cannot protect it from search. I am fairly certain that this is how Simon the Zealot was ruled with Nazareth when the question first came up. Nazareth is protecting your deck from being targeted by a search ability and only a search ability, because that's how the special ability reads. Since Self control is not a search ability, it follows that Nazareth doesn't do anything to interfere with Self Control when it is activating. Now that Self Control is active it protects your deck from being targeted by Nazareth's ability, and therefore you are able to search your deck at will. Which is ironic really. Both abilities are still active and are taking effect it's just Nazareth isn't taking its full effect. The difference here is that Self Control stops Nazareth directly but Nazareth's ability does nothing to stop Self Control's.

If Nazareth said protect all decks from players, then you would have to negate Nazareth if you wanted Self Control's ability to work, because Self control could not target your deck . But again, Nazareth is not protecting anything that self control is trying to do.

I think the question boils down to this: Does Nazareth target the deck the first time it is played only or continuously?

I agree with JM and Guardian mostly (I am not aware of a reason why self control starts working in the next phase).

Praeceps · « **Reply #10 on:** April 20, 2016, 05:07:21 PM »

Quote from: TheHobbit on April 20, 2016, 04:31:11 PM

Honestly I don't think it matters when you play self control. Anytime you play it, at that moment and then on, Self Control protects your deck from Nazareth's targeting of it. If Nazareth cannot target the deck it cannot protect it from search. I am fairly certain that this is how Simon the Zealot was ruled with Nazareth when the question first came up. Nazareth is protecting your deck from being targeted by a search ability and only a search ability, because that's how the special ability reads. Since Self control is not a search ability, it follows that Nazareth doesn't do anything to interfere with Self Control when it is activating. Now that Self Control is active it protects your deck from being targeted by Nazareth's ability, and therefore you are able to search your deck at will. Which is ironic really. Both abilities are still active and are taking effect it's just Nazareth isn't taking its full effect. The difference here is that Self Control stops Nazareth directly but Nazareth's ability does nothing to stop Self Control's.

If Nazareth said protect all decks from players, then you would have to negate Nazareth if you wanted Self Control's ability to work, because Self control could not target your deck . But again, Nazareth is not protecting anything that self control is trying to do.

I think the question boils down to this: Does Nazareth target the deck the first time it is played only or continuously?

I agree with JM and Guardian mostly (I am not aware of a reason why self control starts working in the next phase).

The problem with this reasoning is that nazzy isn't constantly targeting your deck, it targets it once: when the ongoing protect ability starts. IF SC is active first, then Nazzy cannot reach your deck to protect it. If Nazzy is active first, then you are right that it does not stop SC from protecting your deck as well, but protect doesn't stop an affect already in place, even an ongoing effect so Nazzy's protection persists as well since its targeting is already finished.

The Guardian · « **Reply #11 on:** April 20, 2016, 05:33:32 PM »

Quote

The problem with this reasoning is that nazzy isn't constantly targeting your deck

I'm not sure that's the case.

If I have SC in play and you play Nazareth we agree that SC protects from Naz. If the above is true, then we would end up saying that if SC is then discarded at some point, Nazareth still couldn't stop me from searching my deck because it missed its shot to target my deck. Consequently it would be necessary to keep track of which decks Naz could target at the time it was played and which it couldn't and that would be really messy.

Redoubter · « **Reply #12 on:** April 20, 2016, 06:03:31 PM »

A protect ability stops the selected target(s) from being able to be targeted by whatever is being indicated as "protected from." Protect abilities, like all ongoing abilities, do indeed continue to check for new targets if applicable, but once the targeting takes place, it is simply continuously providing that protection; there is no reactivation (unless it is on an artifact or something that gets temporarily shut off).

Whatever is out "first" has already targeted, and therefore you cannot protect in the future from the targeting that already happened; that's already there, and it's continuously applied.

Anything that comes out later that tries to protect that initial target cannot stop the targeting that already took place.

Simpler example: Abigail protects Lost Souls from evil cards. Uzzah tries to protect them from rescue. If Abigail started the rescue, then Uzzah's ability cannot target the Lost Souls; Abigail's protection stops the targeting, so Uzzah's protection does nothing. However, if Abigail were somehow added in after Uzzah's ability activated, his protection already targeted those Lost Souls; she can protect from future targeting from evil cards, but she cannot "undo" the protection already in place, because the targeting already happened.

That's the way the rule has been for awhile, and is consistent with what has been in the REG from even before this last update.

TheHobbit13 · « **Reply #13 on:** April 20, 2016, 07:03:10 PM »

You have to target to protect, so every time you are protecting you are first targeting. That's how it works with instant abilities and that's how it works with continuous abilities, instant abilities done forever if untouched. Not target then protect forever, otherwise you can negate Nazareth temporarily and there would be no chance for the targeting to reactivate because the targeting happened once. The targeting either happens continuously or at one point, why would it suddenly reactivate when it needs to only to stop again? Sounds like continuous targeting to me. Even if the target could theoretically activate again and cast the protect continuously into the future Nazareth wouldn't know what to protect past one iteration of its ability, because you have to target what you are protecting.

I don't understand what is contradictory to our line of thinking in the Abigail example. No one is arguing the SC goes back and lets you search every time you played a search while Nazareth is out. Abigail protects from future targeting of evil cards and so does SC.

Redoubter · « **Reply #14 on:** April 20, 2016, 07:59:24 PM »

Quote from: TheHobbit on April 20, 2016, 07:03:10 PM

You have to target to protect, so every time you are protecting you are first targeting. That's how it works with instant abilities and that's how it works with continuous abilities, instant abilities done forever if untouched. Not target then protect forever, otherwise you can negate Nazareth temporarily and there would be no chance for the targeting to reactivate because the targeting happened once.

This last part is missing that protect is an ongoing ability, and so when it reactivates, it does go and 'look' for targets that are available then. Instant abilities only target once, upon activation, but ongoing abilities can 'activate' once the source of negation is gone or (in some cases) when new targets are available (targeting only those targets).

When a protect activates, at that moment it targets all available targets. If more are available later, and it can update to those targets (i.e. it says "all X" not something like "all X currently in battle"), then it targets those new targets once, at the moment they are available. It never targets them again during that activation.

Nazareth isn't saying "Oh, you're playing a search, well now I'm going to protect from that targeting!" That's not how it happens. Once it activates, it targets the decks available at that moment, and only at that moment; the effect of that targeting is the continuous application of protection. You don't get to somehow say that Self Control can insert its own protection in there, 'underneath' Nazareth, because Nazareth's targeting already happened, it doesn't happen again, unless the ability is made pending or is temporarily negated, in which case it has to reactivate and targets at that moment (and if the deck were protected, say by Self Control already, then that targeting can't work).

kariusvega · « **Reply #15 on:** April 20, 2016, 08:31:28 PM »

Cool totally agree thank you for clarifying this

TheHobbit13 · « **Reply #16 on:** April 21, 2016, 04:19:38 AM »

I think there is a distinction between ongoing targeting and instantaneous targeting. With the distinction being: ongoing targeting always targets and instantaneous targeting targets once as the names imply. To say that the targeting occurs only once is to say that targeting as a function of abilities on sites is not ongoing, which is to say that all abilities on sites are not ongoing.

Another interesting question:

Assuming Nazareth was played first then SC and the negate is temporary. If Nazareth is negated and the negate is also negated, what card takes precedence? Nazz or SC?. It would seem to me that if you undo the undoing, that undoing was never done heh and so Nazareth would again take precedence over SC. Correct?

Also, if Nazareth was simply negated temporarily, I am having trouble seeing why SC has priority after the negate wears off.

Quote from: Jmbeers on April 20, 2016, 03:16:50 PM

It is the same principle that applies to cards with related triggers. Whichever card was in play first gets to complete first.

I don't think you can apply first card played precedence to this situation, FWIW, because triggers and targeting are not the same thing. Again, part of the reason why I think SC should override Nazareth.

Jmbeers · « **Reply #17 on:** April 21, 2016, 10:23:48 AM »

1. Nazz is a protect ability. All protects are ongoing. This question has nothing to do with sites. This could be SC vs any other card type that protects a deck.

2. Much more interesting question. Theoretically I believe a negated negate would give the original protect ability precedents but I'd like to hear what others think.

3. In the case of which protect ability gets the tall hat, it is entirely based on first in play. A negate or interruption of a any card changes the order of how cards were played. If you play a discard my guy and I play a int and discard your guy, the original card you played will still attempt to play, just in a different order. If you have two guys in battle then your enhancement will play, if no one is there it hits an empty table and fizzles.

I understand the frustration. I have been on the other end of rulings arguments befor but at a cetin point you just need to accept the ruling and move forward with the newfound understanding of how the cards work.

kariusvega · « **Reply #18 on:** April 21, 2016, 01:09:14 PM »

yeah i guess it would have to be a matter of like second seal band in angel with a secret name to negate opponents nazareth and band in captain negating your self control which would be what everyone is kind of wondering i think. when the battle is over does it go back to whichever one was played first or do the players each respectively gain their protections simultaneously? where self control would protect from naz?

i know i'm always coming up with these stretch of logic plays, but i think it's just good to know these things before they occur situationally and really appreciate judge's input here on the boards! i hope to one day host tournaments of my own and i would love to be a source of clarity for the people i lead playing Redemption!!

Redoubter · « **Reply #19 on:** April 21, 2016, 04:28:49 PM »

When something is no longer negated, even if it is from a negate being undone, it must reactivate. We don't go back in time and say, for example, that anyone who was discarded in the interim is retroactively protected; that's not the way protect works, and even though the negate is undone, it still wasn't actually active at the time to stop the targeting.

kariusvega · « **Reply #20 on:** April 21, 2016, 05:31:19 PM »

yeah so if both are negated in one battle phase which one takes precedence when they both reactivate simultaneously?

Redoubter · « **Reply #21 on:** April 21, 2016, 05:34:53 PM »

Quote from: kariusvega on April 21, 2016, 05:31:19 PM

yeah so if both are negated in one battle phase which one takes precedence when they both reactivate simultaneously?

Whichever was active first last activates first again; they reactivate in the order of precedence.

kariusvega · « **Reply #22 on:** April 21, 2016, 05:54:29 PM »

ok so it goes back to whichever was in play first? that makes sense thanks!

Redoubter · « **Reply #23 on:** April 21, 2016, 06:08:32 PM »

Quote from: kariusvega on April 21, 2016, 05:54:29 PM

ok so it goes back to whichever was in play first? that makes sense thanks!

I could probably say it clearer by saying that cards activate in the same order, if multiple cards are reactivating at the same time.

News:

Author Topic: Protect precedence (Read 2471 times)

kariusvega

kariusvega

kariusvega

TheHobbit13

TheHobbit13

kariusvega

TheHobbit13

kariusvega

kariusvega

kariusvega