Cactus Game Design Message Boards
Redemption® Collectible Trading Card Game HQ => Official Rules & Errata => Ruling Questions => Topic started by: Praeceps on July 10, 2015, 10:23:09 PM
-
If something is protected from all effect, is it protected from discard by game rule?
-
Seeing as how protection from Discard protects from discard by the numbers, it must be.
-
I think discard by game rule still happens. If your hand was protected from all effects, could you draw past the 16 card limit? No.
Are you thinking of the Warriors Goshen and the heroes it protects if Goshen is discarded but not negated?
-
Promo Goshen, but yes. And what Polarius says is true, which is why I bothered to ask.
-
We have no hierarchy of abilities that I know of, but if we did I believe "cards follow host" would be above protection.
-
Don't quote me on this, but remember that what protect does is limits targeting, cards following their host probably doesn't use targeting, so protection does nothing for them. (Note: This implies that discard from being at 0 toughness is kinda like a target, which I admit is a little weird)
-
Well, the REG defines "Protect" as: "A protect ability allows a card to be unaffected by special abilities or game rules that would normally affect it."
And: "Protection from effects protects from game rules that result in those effects and cards with special abilities that result in
those effects."
So I'd say, yes, contents would survive.
-
If someone has a particular card to ask about, that may help answer questions.
However, if you have something held in another card, and the underlying card is discarded, all held or placed cards follow to discard. They must follow the host, regardless of whether they are actually protected from that effect.
-
That's not actually what the rules say.
-
If someone has a particular card to ask about, that may help answer questions.
However, if you have something held in another card, and the underlying card is discarded, all held or placed cards follow to discard. They must follow the host, regardless of whether they are actually protected from that effect.
can placement only be negated in the same phase that the card is placed for a card with a place ability or does, for example, king of tyrus potentially discard a placed fruit of the spirit territory class enhancement since the place ability is then being negated in that battle phase?
-
can placement only be negated in the same phase that the card is placed for a card with a place ability or does, for example, king of tyrus potentially discard a placed fruit of the spirit territory class enhancement since the place ability is then being negated in that battle phase?
Place is an instant ability. It activates and completes in the same phase. If a card was placed during a prior phase, something like KoT would not be able to negate the placing of the card. However, other abilities that result from the card being placed that are either ongoing or trigger instantly in the current phase can still be negated.
-
If someone has a particular card to ask about, that may help answer questions.
However, if you have something held in another card, and the underlying card is discarded, all held or placed cards follow to discard. They must follow the host, regardless of whether they are actually protected from that effect.
As mentioned above, Goshen (http://redemption.wikia.com/wiki/Goshen_(P)) is a the example we are talking about.
Goshen - Protect contents from all effects. If your Genesis or Exodus Hero has toughness */0 or less, you may place it here instead of discarding it.
As to your second point, they're right. The REG specifically says:
General Description
A protect ability allows a card to be unaffected by special abilities or game rules that would normally affect it.
How to Play
A card cannot be targeted by an ability from which it is protected. Game rules do not apply to a card that is
protected from the effect of the game rule.
All protect abilities are ongoing. A protect ability targets the cards that gain protected status.
Default Conditions
Protect abilities last until the end of the phase in which they are used.
Protect abilities target cards in play.
Characters cannot be protected from themselves.
Special Conditions
Protection from cards only protects from being targeted by the special abilities of those cards, not from game rules
influenced by those cards.
Protection from effects protects from game rules that result in those effects and cards with special abilities that result in
those effects.
-
We have a long standing ruling that cards held or placed Goshen, KotW and similar type cards will share the fate of their host card, regardless of protection. There have been a small group of people who've argued against that ruling persistently but we don't believe it's in the best interest to change it. I personally don't care to have that conversation again.
That being said, we're about to make an update to the REG. In your opinion, what can we do to make this rule more clear?
-
Make it clear that placed cards follow their host, regardless of protection.
-
Make it clear that placed cards follow their host, regardless of protection.
I feel like it is clear. Can you help us see specifically what isn't clear to you and possibly other players and hosts?
Here's what is currently written in the REG.
Movement of Cards “Placed On” Other Cards
If a card is placed on another card and the underlying card is relocated, the placed card is generally relocated to the same location that the underlying card is relocated and remains there. Exceptions to this rule are:
Lost Souls that are placed in sites are always returned to the general Land of Bondage and do not follow the underlying sites when the sites are relocated.
Any card placed on a Lost Soul is discarded if the Lost Soul is relocated outside its original Land of Bondage.
-
Well, since protection stops things from being affected by game rules, I would intuitively guess it would overrule the game rule that says that placed cards follow. Not that I think it should, but from what you quoted from the reg for placed cards, as well as protect from the reg, it's not completely clear that is regardless of protection. I think it would just need a note of that in the reg.
-
Firstly you could add as a clarification that contents follow the container, regardless of protection, because as it stands now, the long standing ruling whiling being the status quo, is contradicted by the REG without something mentioning this regardless of protection clause.
Also, under exceptions you might want to add a note about placed cards on characters who were just captured.
-
In our updated REG document I've suggested that we indicate that cards follow regardless of protection.
In the new REG we also have two additional exceptions noted.
1) cards placed on captured characters are discarded.
2) when a character is healed it does not retain cards that were placed on it.
-
Thanks Gabe (and Redoubter working tirelessly in the REG background).
-
2) when a character is healed it does not retain cards that were placed on it.
is that the current ruling? i've seen namaan's chariot stick to him countless times when healed, and as far as i know peace follows for david's harp. just wondering if this has been played wrong or if the ruling is just now changing in the new reg?
-
It's the current ruling. I think many people have played it wrong because they are unfamiliar with how healing actually works due to it being a seldomly used ability. It's use has increased due to Peter and Luke.
After EC was released I had a FotS deck that used Peter. I assumed that my healed Hero retained his FotS. It was only later that I found out I was playing it wrong. There's nothing in the entry for heal that indicates a placed card returns once the Hero is discarded. Thus we've decided to add clarity in this REG update.
-
That's changed from how it used to be. "The previous state" at least used to include placed cards.
-
That's changed from how it used to be. "The previous state" at least used to include placed cards.
That's what I thought when I initially discovered it. I've dug back through the prior versions of the REG, the 10th Anniversary Rulebook as well as the current REG. I don't find anything under the heal entries that indicate it should have ever been played that way.
It was a change for me. I'm sure it's a change for others as well. But not because we've changed the rules. It's because we were playing it wrong due to a misunderstanding of how heal works.
-
Um, that's the opposite of the argument being made for why cards follow Goshen.
-
i've seen namaan's chariot stick to him countless times when healed, and as far as i know peace follows for david's harp. just wondering if this has been played wrong or if the ruling is just now changing in the new reg?
I don't believe either of those examples are illegal plays. Both Naaman and David's Harp are worded in such way that the heal replaces the discard effect. Cards held or placed are lost when the holder hits the discard pile because the card resets at that point. If the holder doesn't hit the discard pile I believe the cards would remain held/placed.
After reading the Heal entry again, because a character is healable if it's "about to be discarded", it seems to me that I should still be able to heal my FotS Hero with Peter, keeping the Hero from ever hitting the discard pile and resetting. However, if that same Hero hits the discard pile and I later activate a healing ability, then he doesn't keep the FotS.
I'm certainly open to correction on that, but it's the way I read it.
-
After reading the Heal entry again, because a character is healable if it's "about to be discarded", it seems to me that I should still be able to heal my FotS Hero with Peter, keeping the Hero from ever hitting the discard pile and resetting. However, if that same Hero hits the discard pile and I later activate a healing ability, then he doesn't keep the FotS.
That is how I've understood and played it.
-
Are we just not going to talk about how we were willing to go against the written rules for Goshen but not for Healing (later re-reading of the rules for Healing notwithstanding)?
-
One deals with game rules, the other deals with a special ability--the scenarios are not identical.
-
No, no two scenarios are ever identical. Is there a policy for when we go by what the rules say and when we go by oral tradition?
-
First, giving my post a -1 doesn't change the rules ;)
Second, where are the characters supposed to go if they don't follow the target?
Third, it is already very clear in the rules as Gabe pointed out. We have been making A LOT of changes to the REG to make things even more clear, but this one is not in doubt.
Fourth, the Heal on someone like Luke or Peter is not an instead, it is an activated ability. As such, the character already had to be discarded, they would not be "being discarded." By the time you could activate the ability, the character is discarded, and it is healing them not replacing the discard effect. At that point, the placed cards are in discard pile, and thus are no longer 'placed' on their targets (having reset to face value). Thus, they do not return with them.
-
Fourth, the Heal on someone like Luke or Peter is not an instead, it is an activated ability. As such, the character already had to be discarded, they would not be "being discarded." By the time you could activate the ability, the character is discarded, and it is healing them not replacing the discard effect. At that point, the placed cards are in discard pile, and thus are no longer 'placed' on their targets (having reset to face value). Thus, they do not return with them.
It sounds like that's something we need to discuss since Justin and I see it differently than you do.
-
Fourth, the Heal on someone like Luke or Peter is not an instead, it is an activated ability. As such, the character already had to be discarded, they would not be "being discarded." By the time you could activate the ability, the character is discarded, and it is healing them not replacing the discard effect. At that point, the placed cards are in discard pile, and thus are no longer 'placed' on their targets (having reset to face value). Thus, they do not return with them.
It sounds like that's something we need to discuss since Justin and I see it differently than you do.
Last time I talked to you, you had indicated you agreed with me, and I know that in other games online the ruling I specified had been followed, but we can definitely discuss it further. However, unless a card REPLACES an effect (which Heal doesn't), the original effect occurred. Since it did, placed cards are no longer attached to return when healed.
-
First, giving my post a -1 doesn't change the rules ;)
Second, where are the characters supposed to go if they don't follow the target?
Third, it is already very clear in the rules as Gabe pointed out. We have been making A LOT of changes to the REG to make things even more clear, but this one is not in doubt.
First saying something is a rule when it is directly contradicted by the written rules, doesn't make it a correct rule.
Second, territory, where they already were I'd guess, if it were not impossible.
Third, no, it wasn't very clear in the rules; the rules said the exact opposite. This was why I thanked Gabe and you for adding the clarification to the REG so that it would then be clear and beyond dispute.
-
The new REG is for next season, not this season.
I'm telling you that what you are reading from the REG does support the current rule (which has also been in effect for YEARS without an issue) and there is no problem or change for this season.
Cards follow what they are held/placed on wherever they go, with those few exceptions listed. There is nothing that indicates they are returned to a different location. Nothing quoted contradicts the ruling because the way Placed and Held work define what happens in those cases and there is nothing else that could happen. That some disagree does not change the ruling nor how it works. It will be clarified further, but the current wording was also sufficient so there is no question for this season.
-
Since cards reset when they hit hand, deck, or discard, how can they retain the status of being discarded from hand or deck, or even being discarded during a certain turn, for the purpose of meeting heal's limitations and qualifications for targeting when everything is supposed to reset?
-
Since cards reset when they hit hand, deck, or discard, how can they retain the status of being discarded from hand or deck, or even being discarded during a certain turn, for the purpose of meeting heal's limitations and qualifications for targeting when everything is supposed to reset?
There are plenty of things that are 'known states' that persist for targeting and tracking. For instance, "once per game" abilities.
-
Since cards reset when they hit hand, deck, or discard, how can they retain the status of being discarded from hand or deck, or even being discarded during a certain turn, for the purpose of meeting heal's limitations and qualifications for targeting when everything is supposed to reset?
yeah if they always reset, like two liner, does that mean that paul is never a valid heal target by peter since he has to go to the discard pile first? i thought they could be healed before ever going to discard i thought it was like they get healed instead. not trying to argue, genuinely trying to understand the operations! thank you!!
-
yeah if they always reset, like two liner, does that mean that paul is never a valid heal target by peter since he has to go to the discard pile first? i thought they could be healed before ever going to discard i thought it was like they get healed instead. not trying to argue, genuinely trying to understand the operations! thank you!
Answered the first part in the post right before yours, but for the second part Paul is a gray Saul in discard pile and not eligible for targeting by Heal.
-
as far as the goshen thing goes i don't see why it's hard to understand that any cards in goshen would be discarded if goshen is discarded. it's just like tower of thebez.. shipwreck, for example, negates and discards it so why wouldn't it negate the protection? if you aren't negating the protection i can see why some may think that the contents should return to territory
-
I'm telling you that what you are reading from the REG does support the current rule (which has also been in effect for YEARS without an issue) and there is no problem or change for this season.
Okay, maybe I'm reading it wrong. Where in the REG does it say that a card placed in another card follows it regardless of protection? Or maybe it doesn't say regardless of protection, maybe it says that it does this even though protection says it trumps game rules and this has been ruled to be true. Can you show where it says that?
You keep saying that the rules say this, but those of us one the other side of the argument can't seem to find this anywhere. So in order to rectify the fact that we aren't seeing what you are, please point it out to us.
And just for the record, I'm not arguing for a change, I'm trying to figure out how something has been ruled to be one way when, as far as I can see, the rules don't agree with this interpretation.
-
Okay, maybe I'm reading it wrong. Where in the REG does it say that a card placed in another card follows it regardless of protection? Or maybe it doesn't say regardless of protection, maybe it says that it does this even though protection says it trumps game rules and this has been ruled to be true. Can you show where it says that?
I've quoted that section of the REG for you already earlier in this thread. What it says is the placed cards follow. Then it says "these are the exceptions". Protection is not one of the exceptions.
I understand that wasn't clear to you. We've given you the long standing ruling. We've explained where to find it. We're going to make it clearer for you in the upcoming update. We're not going back on the ruling. What more do you want?
-
This is madness. The rules on protection explicitly state that it protects from game rules. There is a game rule that says cards follow their host. There does not need to be an exception in host-following, there needs to be an exception in protection from game rule.
And yet again, something being played a way for years without issue is being used to justify contradicting the rules in one case but not another.
-
Okay, maybe I'm reading it wrong. Where in the REG does it say that a card placed in another card follows it regardless of protection? Or maybe it doesn't say regardless of protection, maybe it says that it does this even though protection says it trumps game rules and this has been ruled to be true. Can you show where it says that?
I've quoted that section of the REG for you already earlier in this thread. What it says is the placed cards follow. Then it says "these are the exceptions". Protection is not one of the exceptions.
If you look under decrease, you'll find these lines:
Default Conditions
If the toughness of a character is decreased to a value of zero or less, that character is discarded immediately.
Clarifications
The phrase "if result is */0 or less, discard Hero [or Evil Character]" on increase or decrease abilities cards is a clarification
reminding players of the game rule that discards such heroes, not a discard special ability.
There's nothing in the entire Increase or Decrease entry that says anything about protection and there are no exceptions listed, yet Joseph (http://redemption.wikia.com/wiki/Joseph_(FF2)) has consistantly been ruled to protect from the game rule that would discard him if he were decreased to */0 or lower will not negated and in battle.
How is this different from the Goshen example?
-
Right now I'm just seeing continued argument for the sake of argument.
Gabe put it best, the question has been answered. It will be clarified even further in the new REG, but the rule is not changing. Since there is nothing else to be actually gained, there is no chance of causing a change to the ruling, and there will be improved wording in the new rules so that your concerns are addressed, what else is being argued about here? We are not going to continue to go around and around on this when the outcome is 100% clear just to fight. That's not what this board is for.
-
I can see what the dissenting side is saying, that a game rule says placed/held cards follow but protection itself says it protects from game rules in certain situations. This is an issue with the current REG, not an issue with how the situation actually works, is being interpreted, or is being ruled.
There are some game rules that cannot be overridden by special abilities ever (such as that angels/demons cannot be redeemed) and the new REG will clarify the current interpretation that the "held/placed cards follow their host" rule is one of these.
At least, that's what I'm getting from posts on both sides of this thread.
-
This is an issue with the current REG, not an issue with how the situation actually works, is being interpreted, or is being ruled.
Exactly. The current REG is outdated and certain parts, such as placed cards following host regardless of protection, are not totally clear. As far as I can tell, it could be interpreted either way.
I don't think anyone's arguing that the ruling should be changed. Just that the current REG isn't clear. Which makes it 10X more awesome to be getting a new REG. Thanks again to the people putting it together! Hopefully situations such as these can be avoided (or at least less frequent) because of it.
-
Right now I'm just seeing continued argument for the sake of argument.
Gabe put it best, the question has been answered. It will be clarified even further in the new REG, but the rule is not changing. Since there is nothing else to be actually gained, there is no chance of causing a change to the ruling, and there will be improved wording in the new rules so that your concerns are addressed, what else is being argued about here? We are not going to continue to go around and around on this when the outcome is 100% clear just to fight. That's not what this board is for.
Once again, you are focused on a detail and not what underpins the detail. The problem is not with a ruling on Goshen, which I highly doubt anyone is actually attempting to argue. The problem is not whether the outcome is clear. The problem is with where the rules are coming from. A new REG with greater attempts at clarity will not solve the issue as this thread is still further proof of dismissal, out-of-hand, of any perspectives that do not match with your own. The way the rules are actually written, where protection protects from game rules and there is a game rule that causes cards to follow a host if discarded, is 100% clear that they should not follow Goshen. Again, that they follow is a game rule and the rule for protection explicitly states it protects from game rules. We know this is a problem with how the rules are written versus how they are intended, but those were not the terms the argument was engaged on. I am suspicious of another new REG solving the issue of consistent treatment of errors that has been around since at least Patriarchs. What I just can't understand is why. Those who make the rules have the power to change them to reflect intent, but rather than doing so, there are all kinds of verbal games that attempt to explain away the problem without admitting there is a problem. We follow the spirit of the law sometimes (Goshen and I assume the new Job card will be the same), the letter others (old Priestly Breastplate and False Dreams), and often neither (when the various arbiters of the rules disagree but make rulings anyway, such as with Healing in this thread), with nothing other than pure arbitration guiding when which is applied.
This is the last plea to look beyond the accident of each particular instance to the form of where the frustration is coming from, and to even be willing to consider that the other side is coming from a position more complex than that of clamorous children, that I will make.
-
Right now I'm just seeing continued argument for the sake of argument.
Gabe put it best, the question has been answered. It will be clarified even further in the new REG, but the rule is not changing. Since there is nothing else to be actually gained, there is no chance of causing a change to the ruling, and there will be improved wording in the new rules so that your concerns are addressed, what else is being argued about here? We are not going to continue to go around and around on this when the outcome is 100% clear just to fight. That's not what this board is for.
Once again, you are focused on a detail and not what underpins the detail. The problem is not with a ruling on Goshen, which I highly doubt anyone is actually attempting to argue. The problem is not whether the outcome is clear. The problem is with where the rules are coming from. A new REG with greater attempts at clarity will not solve the issue as this thread is still further proof of dismissal, out-of-hand, of any perspectives that do not match with your own. The way the rules are actually written, where protection protects from game rules and there is a game rule that causes cards to follow a host if discarded, is 100% clear that they should not follow Goshen. Again, that they follow is a game rule and the rule for protection explicitly states it protects from game rules. We know this is a problem with how the rules are written versus how they are intended, but those were not the terms the argument was engaged on. I am suspicious of another new REG solving the issue of consistent treatment of errors that has been around since at least Patriarchs. What I just can't understand is why. Those who make the rules have the power to change them to reflect intent, but rather than doing so, there are all kinds of verbal games that attempt to explain away the problem without admitting there is a problem. We follow the spirit of the law sometimes (Goshen and I assume the new Job card will be the same), the letter others (old Priestly Breastplate and False Dreams), and often neither (when the various arbiters of the rules disagree but make rulings anyway, such as with Healing in this thread), with nothing other than pure arbitration guiding when which is applied.
This is the last plea to look beyond the accident of each particular instance to the form of where the frustration is coming from, and to even be willing to consider that the other side is coming from a position more complex than that of clamorous children, that I will make.
You know what, I'm with MP on this one.
-
Pol, you seem to think that anyone who disagrees with you is just being stubborn instead of you being able to see that there are times where your position is actually wrong. It has been evident in many threads recently, and you continue to post complaining that people could disagree with you. We don't all have to agree, but once there is a ruling, it is time to move on. We're there now.
Gabe and I explained, from the rules, how this currently works. There is no discrepancy. We showed that. That you don't agree doesn't change that, sorry that this is a problem for you but it is just the fact in this case.
There are plenty of times where I am wrong, where Gabe is wrong, where everyone is wrong. I've made public reversals and changes to my positions many times, and so has Gabe, so to constantly be attacking us for refusing to see your side is not justified. I don't have a problem being wrong, but I am not in this case. Sorry that you don't see it that way, but it is evident from your post that it doesn't matter what I say, you seem to want to continue to fight for fighting's sake unless I agree with you. That's not something for this board, so as a mod I'll ask you to keep this thread on-topic and away from attacking others or just arguing for the sake of it.
-
Third, it is already very clear in the rules as Gabe pointed out. We have been making A LOT of changes to the REG to make things even more clear, but this one is not in doubt.
I'm telling you that what you are reading from the REG does support the current rule (which has also been in effect for YEARS without an issue) and there is no problem or change for this season.
Cards follow what they are held/placed on wherever they go, with those few exceptions listed. There is nothing that indicates they are returned to a different location. Nothing quoted contradicts the ruling because the way Placed and Held work define what happens in those cases and there is nothing else that could happen. That some disagree does not change the ruling nor how it works. It will be clarified further, but the current wording was also sufficient so there is no question for this season.
I've quoted that section of the REG for you already earlier in this thread. What it says is the placed cards follow. Then it says "these are the exceptions". Protection is not one of the exceptions.
I understand that wasn't clear to you. We've given you the long standing ruling. We've explained where to find it. We're going to make it clearer for you in the upcoming update. We're not going back on the ruling. What more do you want?
Right now I'm just seeing continued argument for the sake of argument.
Gabe put it best, the question has been answered. It will be clarified even further in the new REG, but the rule is not changing. Since there is nothing else to be actually gained, there is no chance of causing a change to the ruling, and there will be improved wording in the new rules so that your concerns are addressed, what else is being argued about here? We are not going to continue to go around and around on this when the outcome is 100% clear just to fight. That's not what this board is for.
Pol, you seem to think that anyone who disagrees with you is just being stubborn instead of you being able to see that there are times where your position is actually wrong. It has been evident in many threads recently, and you continue to post complaining that people could disagree with you. We don't all have to agree, but once there is a ruling, it is time to move on. We're there now.
Gabe and I explained, from the rules, how this currently works. There is no discrepancy. We showed that. That you don't agree doesn't change that, sorry that this is a problem for you but it is just the fact in this case.
There are plenty of times where I am wrong, where Gabe is wrong, where everyone is wrong. I've made public reversals and changes to my positions many times, and so has Gabe, so to constantly be attacking us for refusing to see your side is not justified. I don't have a problem being wrong, but I am not in this case. Sorry that you don't see it that way, but it is evident from your post that it doesn't matter what I say, you seem to want to continue to fight for fighting's sake unless I agree with you. That's not something for this board, so as a mod I'll ask you to keep this thread on-topic and away from attacking others or just arguing for the sake of it.
If seeing these right next to each other don't illustrate the problem for you, it's a lost cause.
-
While I can agree that there is currently an inconsistency in the written rules, as I pointed out before that's simply a problem with the current REG's written description of various rules, not with how the rules actually work or are enforced. The new REG will have updated and clearer definitions for many rules, including the ones that matter for this discussion, to reflect how they actually work (i.e.: the letter of the law, in your words).
At this point I don't see any reason to continue this discussion. There has been a ruling agreed on by 2 elders (regarding protection vs following host) and another discussion brought up that will need to be evaluated by the Elders as a whole (regarding healing). I'm sure they'll post once they reach a decision about the healing question, and in the meantime we know how to treat protection v. hold for the remainder of this season and it will be reflected in the REG next season.