Author Topic: Protection (Read 4914 times)

The Guardian · « **Reply #25 on:** July 13, 2015, 12:53:48 AM »

Quote

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.

Minister Polarius · « **Reply #26 on:** July 13, 2015, 01:51:01 AM »

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)?

The Guardian · « **Reply #27 on:** July 13, 2015, 02:06:36 AM »

One deals with game rules, the other deals with a special ability--the scenarios are not identical.

Minister Polarius · « **Reply #28 on:** July 13, 2015, 02:20:07 AM »

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?

Redoubter · « **Reply #29 on:** July 13, 2015, 10:41:56 AM »

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.

Gabe · « **Reply #30 on:** July 13, 2015, 11:19:45 AM »

Quote from: Redoubter on July 13, 2015, 10:41:56 AM

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.

Redoubter · « **Reply #31 on:** July 13, 2015, 11:57:03 AM »

Quote from: Gabe on July 13, 2015, 11:19:45 AM

Quote from: Redoubter on July 13, 2015, 10:41:56 AM
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.

Praeceps · « **Reply #32 on:** July 13, 2015, 12:51:07 PM »

Quote from: Redoubter on July 13, 2015, 10:41:56 AM

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.

Redoubter · « **Reply #33 on:** July 13, 2015, 01:28:09 PM »

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.

Noah · « **Reply #34 on:** July 13, 2015, 01:53:04 PM »

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?

Redoubter · « **Reply #35 on:** July 13, 2015, 01:54:44 PM »

Quote from: tripleplayNo3 on July 13, 2015, 01:53:04 PM

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.

kariusvega · « **Reply #36 on:** July 13, 2015, 01:59:07 PM »

Quote from: tripleplayNo3 on July 13, 2015, 01:53:04 PM

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!!

Redoubter · « **Reply #37 on:** July 13, 2015, 02:00:19 PM »

Quote from: kariusvega on July 13, 2015, 01:59:07 PM

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.

kariusvega · « **Reply #38 on:** July 13, 2015, 02:02:29 PM »

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

Praeceps · « **Reply #39 on:** July 13, 2015, 02:29:17 PM »

Quote from: Redoubter on July 13, 2015, 01:28:09 PM

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.

Gabe · « **Reply #40 on:** July 13, 2015, 02:39:17 PM »

Quote from: Praeceps on July 13, 2015, 02:29:17 PM

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?

Minister Polarius · « **Reply #41 on:** July 13, 2015, 02:44:59 PM »

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.

Praeceps · « **Reply #42 on:** July 13, 2015, 03:13:15 PM »

Quote from: Gabe on July 13, 2015, 02:39:17 PM

Quote from: Praeceps on July 13, 2015, 02:29:17 PM
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:

Quote from: REG>Increase or Decrease Abilities

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 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?

Redoubter · « **Reply #43 on:** July 13, 2015, 04:05:09 PM »

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.

browarod · « **Reply #44 on:** July 13, 2015, 04:30:32 PM »

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.

kram1138 · « **Reply #45 on:** July 13, 2015, 06:19:03 PM »

Quote from: browarod on July 13, 2015, 04:30:32 PM

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.

Minister Polarius · « **Reply #46 on:** July 13, 2015, 10:10:55 PM »

Quote from: Redoubter on July 13, 2015, 04:05:09 PM

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.

Praeceps · « **Reply #47 on:** July 13, 2015, 10:26:04 PM »

Quote from: Minister Polarius on July 13, 2015, 10:10:55 PM

Quote from: Redoubter on July 13, 2015, 04:05:09 PM
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.

Redoubter · « **Reply #48 on:** July 13, 2015, 11:56:44 PM »

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.

Minister Polarius · « **Reply #49 on:** July 14, 2015, 01:09:27 AM »

Quote from: Redoubter on July 13, 2015, 10:41:56 AM

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.

Quote from: Redoubter on July 13, 2015, 01:28:09 PM

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.

Quote from: Gabe on July 13, 2015, 02:39:17 PM

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?

Quote from: Redoubter on July 13, 2015, 04:05:09 PM

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.

Quote from: Redoubter on July 13, 2015, 11:56:44 PM

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.

News:

Author Topic: Protection (Read 4914 times)

kariusvega

kariusvega

browarod