Author Topic: Protection of Angels (Read 16053 times)

frisian9 · « **Reply #75 on:** July 14, 2009, 11:47:47 PM »

Isn't Tim stating that the discard of the card is due to a game rule and not a special ability? That means the numbers are governed by game rules, not special ability. Usually we use the word "ability" to designate when numbers are targeted, right?

Perhaps we have the same "end" with Enoch, but a different means to explaining it?

Mike

The Schaef · « **Reply #76 on:** July 14, 2009, 11:53:15 PM »

What it means is that the effect from which the card is protected is not limited only to the effect of special abilities, unless the card specifies a certain type of ability.

In his example, the card that does not specify abilities protects universally, including from effects not caused by special abilities. If Enoch is protected only from discard abilities, then not only are Tim and I (and everyone else who ever said this) wrong, but Enoch is being played wrong.

Alex_Olijar · « **Reply #77 on:** July 15, 2009, 12:31:46 AM »

I would have to say Enoch's subposed clarification ability is actually more of an extra ability. By clarifying what happens were he to be discarded, it insinuates that he can not be discarded in anyway.

Point: Errata him please.

ChristianSoldier · « **Reply #78 on:** July 15, 2009, 12:51:44 AM »

After reading the definition of protect in the rulebook I would have to say if I was judging a tournament I would probably rule that it doesn't do anything to numbers or game rules. And I like the idea that it isn't just a better version then Immune, but it might almost be easier to change the definition of Protect, but the way the rules stand now, I don't see why the protect forts protect from having numbers decreased to 0 or Protection of Angels protecting from numbers.

I'm not against protect being changed or staying the same, but the rulings should match the definition.

ChristianSoldier · « **Reply #79 on:** July 15, 2009, 12:55:21 AM »

Actually after reading more on the protect in the REG it says that it functions the same as Immune for whatever its protecting from, so that adds another argument to those who say it does protect from numbers.

Quote

The phrases “immune to”, “ignores”, “cannot be”, “may not be”, “may only be _____ by”, “must be _____ by”, “no _____ may be, “prevented from being”, “protected from”, and “protect” have the same function.

Prof Underwood · « **Reply #80 on:** July 15, 2009, 10:36:54 AM »

I also agree that "protection" from a card should mean that card can't hurt you (by special ability or by numbers).

Redemption is based on a rock/paper/scissors mechanic with protect/negate/CBN, but it seems like the rulings lately have consistently weakened the protection part of that (ie. PoA vs 12FG, KotW vs. The Lord Fights for You). I don't want to see the balance in this area of the game get skewed.

STAMP · « **Reply #81 on:** July 15, 2009, 10:48:09 AM »

Cool! I don't need to prepare for any T2 defense that uses Crown of Thorns.

Captain Kirk · « **Reply #82 on:** July 15, 2009, 12:25:14 PM »

Well since Schaef and Mike are on different sides of the boat on this, I hope an official decision is reached about Crown of Thorns and Protect fortresses. It would be a huge change to overturn the way it has been played since High Priest's Palace's release. It would also be a big blow to players using Sadducee/Pharisee decks all season, only to find out one of their best ways of getting initiative has been stripped right before nationals.

Kirk

Prof Underwood · « **Reply #83 on:** July 15, 2009, 04:09:41 PM »

Quote from: Captain Kirk on July 15, 2009, 12:25:14 PM

Well since Schaef and Mike are on different sides of the boat on this

That means that the tie-breaker goes to Bryon

And we already know that Bryon doesn't feel that protection extends to game rules (KotW vs. ANB), therefore I would guess that to be consistent he would also not favor forts protecting characters from the game rule that discards characters in territory with a toughness of zero.

I don't agree with that perspective, but I'm guessing that is the way this book is going to end.

SirNobody · « **Reply #84 on:** July 15, 2009, 08:19:39 PM »

Hey,

Both the REG and the Rulebook were written before protect was well defined in Redemption, so neither of them have the best definitions for protect. The following is what the current draft of the next REG says about protect:

"A card cannot be targeted by an ability that it is protected from. Game rules do not apply to cards that are protected from the effect of the game rule."

it also says,

"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."

Strength and Toughness are not special abilities and are not game rules so you cannot be protected from Strength and Toughness. The bolded part addresses this somewhat. It is not strength and toughness that causes people to be discarded when the loose in battle it's a game rule that is determined by strength and toughness. Protection of Angels does not protect from game rules it only protects from cards so it does not protect against the game rule that discards your character if it's toughness is less than the opponent's strength.

Tschow,

Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly

lightningninja · « **Reply #85 on:** July 15, 2009, 08:27:27 PM »

I don't see it as being discarded by a game rule though. I see your being discarded because you lost by the numbers, aka an evil card harmed you. Even though not by an ability, it is still harm by an evil card. A game rule is that if you lose by the numbers you are discarded. Being harmed because you are losing by the numbers is because of an evil effect, not because of a game rule.

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #86 on:** July 15, 2009, 08:31:37 PM »

Quote from: SirNobody on July 15, 2009, 08:19:39 PM

The following is what the current draft of the next REG says ...

Wow. If that is a "clarification" then I am really going to have a hard time with rulings from the "next REG."

I would still have no idea how to rule the Crown of Thorns vs. High Priest's Palace based on the "new" wording.

lightningninja · « **Reply #87 on:** July 15, 2009, 08:35:44 PM »

Exactly. Excellent point.

FresnoRedemption · « **Reply #88 on:** July 15, 2009, 09:17:35 PM »

Is there any way we can get an official ruling before Nationals?

SirNobody · « **Reply #89 on:** July 15, 2009, 09:33:04 PM »

Hey,

Quote from: lightningninja on July 15, 2009, 08:27:27 PM

I don't see it as being discarded by a game rule though. I see your being discarded because you lost by the numbers, aka an evil card harmed you.

Then you are seeing it incorrectly and need to correct your thinking

Tschow,

Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly

crustpope · « **Reply #90 on:** July 15, 2009, 09:43:29 PM »

Quote from: SirNobody on July 15, 2009, 08:19:39 PM

"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."

Strength and Toughness are not special abilities and are not game rules so you cannot be protected from Strength and Toughness. ...... It is not strength and toughness that causes people to be discarded when the loose in battle it's a game rule that is determined by strength and toughness. Protection of Angels does not protect from game rules it only protects from cards so it does not protect against the game rule that discards your character if it's toughness is less than the opponent's strength.

Tschow,

Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly

By this definition Proteciton fortresses do not protect from being discarded by the numbers. Saducees with High priest palace does not protect vs crown of thorns. This is a huge blow to the saducees and to the whole idea of protection. I feel strongly that the Reg must be revised to something more akin to what Tim Maly posted in the previous post that Shcaef linked to where he stated that protect form discard "abilities" protected form discard cards but nt by the numbers but the phrase Protect form discard protected form both. This seems more in line with the way people have been paling and ruling on protection for the past several years.

Plus I Ineed my saducees to be able to block Zebulun late in the game

SirNobody · « **Reply #91 on:** July 15, 2009, 10:12:00 PM »

Hey,

Quote from: crustpope on July 15, 2009, 09:43:29 PM

By this definition Proteciton fortresses do not protect from being discarded by the numbers. Saducees with High priest palace does not protect vs crown of thorns. This is a huge blow to the saducees and to the whole idea of protection.

There is a couple reasons that the next REG is in draft stage and not published yet, and this is one of them. My post in this thread and my post that Schaef linked to are trying to say the same thing. Apparently my post in this thread didn't do a very good job of saying it seeing as you think it says the opposite of what it is supposed to say and YMT doesn't know what it says.

Let me walk through the Crown of Thorns/High Priest's Palace example.

High Priest's Palace says, "Protect Pharisee and Sadducee Evil Characters in your territory from discard."

Is 'protect from discard' protection from cards or from an effect? Discard is an effect. Now if it said 'discard special abilities' those are always on cards, so that would be protection from cards, rather than protection from an effect, but High Priest's Palace doesn't protect from discard special abilities it protects from discard. Discard as a whole is an effect.

So we ignore the sentence about protection from cards since that's not what High Priest's Palace has and read the sentence about protection from effects because that is what High Priest's Palace has.

"Protection from effects protects from game rules that result in those effects and cards with special abilities that result in those effects."

Crown of Thorns causes a Sadducee to be discarded by a game rule that discards any character with 0 or less toughness. The game rule results in a discard effect, so High Priest's Palace protects from that game rule.

Does that help you understand? If it does, what part of the original statement was causing the confusion? How can I better word it to eliminate that confusion?

Tschow,

Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #92 on:** July 15, 2009, 10:57:44 PM »

I had to read your post three times, but I think I finally understand.

Is it possible to have a "Layman's REG" with small words and short sentences? I really don't want have to finish my Master's Degree just to make correct rulings.

frisian9 · « **Reply #93 on:** July 15, 2009, 11:08:08 PM »

That is what is being worked on now. Have patience.

Mike

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #94 on:** July 15, 2009, 11:16:41 PM »

See, that's what I'm talking about. "Patience" is a big word. Just say, "Wait!"

SirNobody · « **Reply #95 on:** July 15, 2009, 11:49:41 PM »

Hey,

Quote from: YourMathTeacher on July 15, 2009, 10:57:44 PM

I had to read your post three times, but I think I finally understand.

Is it possible to have a "Layman's REG" with small words and short sentences? I really don't want have to finish my Master's Degree just to make correct rulings.

I understand your concern. There have been times where I read sections a couple days after I wrote them and I had to read them three times to figure out what I had said. Part of the problem is that I think in big words and sometimes big words are hard to translate into little words. Part of the problem is that the new REG comes at the game from a significantly different angle than the current REG does (in that respect I think the new REG will be easier to understand the more you use it).

As Mike said we're working on making it easier to understand. I also intend to be on the boards a lot when the new REG comes out to help clarify any and everything in it.

Tschow,

Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly

Prof Underwood · « **Reply #96 on:** July 16, 2009, 09:35:49 AM »

Quote from: SirNobody on July 15, 2009, 08:19:39 PM

"A card cannot be targeted by an ability that it is protected from. Game rules do not apply to cards that are protected from the effect of the game rule."

"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."

OK, so let's look at another situation using this "new" REG definition.

Kingdoms of the World - Evil Characters here are protected from effect, and may be removed during holder’s preparation phase only. While an Evil Character is here, protect holder from being forced to block with another player’s character.

OK, so this is another card that protects from an effect. In fact from all effects. So we ignore the sentence about protection from cards, because that's not what it says. So ANB shuffles the fort, then a game rule results in a shuffle effect to the ECs inside. However, that comes in direct conflict with those ECs protection from effect. Therefore they don't get shuffled. Right?

EmJayBee83 · « **Reply #97 on:** July 16, 2009, 10:01:04 AM »

Quote from: Prof Underwood on July 16, 2009, 09:35:49 AM

Therefore they don't get shuffled. Right?

Please say, "Yes." Please, please, please, please, please, please.

Professoralstad · « **Reply #98 on:** July 16, 2009, 10:43:48 AM »

Quote from: Prof Underwood on July 16, 2009, 09:35:49 AM

OK, so let's look at another situation using this "new" REG definition.

Kingdoms of the World - Evil Characters here are protected from effect, and may be removed during holders preparation phase only. While an Evil Character is here, protect holder from being forced to block with another players character.

OK, so this is another card that protects from an effect. In fact from all effects. So we ignore the sentence about protection from cards, because that's not what it says. So ANB shuffles the fort, then a game rule results in a shuffle effect to the ECs inside. However, that comes in direct conflict with those ECs protection from effect. Therefore they don't get shuffled. Right?

The problem is, where would they go? Returning to territory is an effect, correct? So they couldn't go there. They certainly wouldn't be discarded, or set-aside. Now, one might argue that returning to territory is a default. Well, the default currently is placed cards (except Lost Souls) follow their hosts, unless specified otherwise. As a primarily defensive player, I don't like it any more than anyone else. But I think it makes the most sense given our options.

Of course the REG contradicts everything I just said:

Quote from: REG>Special Conditions

Although characters in Goshen or Kingdoms of the World are protected, the Fortress itself is not protected and can be shuffled into the draw pile by A New Beginning. Any characters inside them are no longer protected and are shuffled into the draw pile as well.

If Goshen or Kingdoms of the World are discarded, all characters held are returned to owner’s territory.

So I don't know if this question can be completely settled until the new REG comes out. Especially with persistent people such as yourself.

crustpope · « **Reply #99 on:** July 16, 2009, 10:46:47 AM »

I have heard it ruled that when the fort gets shuffled that they stay in territory, but since they have lost their "protect" they follow the fort anyway. I think this is a bad ruling because If I have my LS in a green site when I play ANB, then at the time the card was played, My EC's were protected from the ANB because they were immune to green brigade enhancements. At the same time, if I have EC's in Kingdoms, at the time the card was played, they were protected from the effect.

Now if you rule that the EC's go wherever the Fortress goes, then I willbuy that similar to the way that dorthy went to the land of Oz because she was in the house that went to Oz, but to rule that the EC's get kicked out of the fortress and then get swept away by a shuffle that they were protected from when the card was played seems inconsistent with other rulings regarding ANB such as House of Rimmon and the Color Guard in a Green site.

News:

Author Topic: Protection of Angels (Read 16053 times)

The Schaef

FresnoRedemption