Cactus Game Design Message Boards
Redemption® Collectible Trading Card Game HQ => Official Rules & Errata => Ruling Questions => Topic started by: metalpsalm on July 11, 2009, 01:43:13 PM
-
Have we figured out how this is played yet? It was argued about a while ago, but I never got to the end of it.
Interrupt the battle and protect all Heroes in play and set aside areas from evil cards until end of turn.
Protect from evil cards?
That's really broad
-
I think it was concluded that "protect from evil cards" means "protect from evil special abilities."
-
I think it was concluded that "protect from evil cards" means "protect from evil special abilities."
And evil characters and curses. It is broad but it says what it means, all heroes in play cannot be harmed in any way by evil cards.
-
so you basically have to be beaten by the numbers, right?
-
The end of that argument was this.
PoA protects from every evil ability except negates. Negate is not classified as "Harm" IIRC, so Twelve Fingers could negate a band even if PoA is active.
*EDIT*
I think you are protected from numbers as well...
-
Yep, if that card is not negated heroes WILL NOT DIE from anything evil.
-
wow, uber awesomeness.....
-
The end of that argument was this.
PoA protects from every evil ability except negates. Negate is not classified as "Harm" IIRC, so Twelve Fingers could negate a band even if PoA is active.
*EDIT*
I think you are protected from numbers as well...
That's what they were arguing about. Any ruling on that????
-
You CAN negate it. It's always been that way, some people just argued against it anyways.
-
You CAN negate it. It's always been that way, some people just argued against it anyways.
No, the protect from numbers part
-
You CAN negate it. It's always been that way, some people just argued against it anyways.
Yeah, thats obvious, but it doesnt protect from ANY negate. So, the question was if a band had PoA played on them, if 12-fingered Giant could negate the band without negating PoA. The ruling was that He indeed could negate the band while PoA was going.
-
Yes, absolutely. You can negate anyone's ability while they are protected.
And yes again, you ARE protected from numbers.
-
I agree. It says to protect from all evil cards. If your Heroes lose by numbers, then they are being directly harmed by an evil card because losing by the numbers causes them to be discarded. It doesn't say "evil SAs", it says "evil cards".
-
Hey,
"Protect I think it was concluded that "protect from evil cards" means "protect from evil special abilities."
Correct. Strength and Toughness are not special abilities, Protection of Angels does not protect you from being defeated by the numbers.
Tschow,
Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly
-
Hey,
"Protect I think it was concluded that "protect from evil cards" means "protect from evil special abilities."
Correct. Strength and Toughness are not special abilities, Protection of Angels does not protect you from being defeated by the numbers.
Tschow,
Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly
This is good to know. I have a friend who constantly thwarts my plans by playing Protection of Angels. I'm glad I can still at least defeat his heroes when he plays that card.
-
Hey,
"Protect I think it was concluded that "protect from evil cards" means "protect from evil special abilities."
Correct. Strength and Toughness are not special abilities, Protection of Angels does not protect you from being defeated by the numbers.
Tschow,
Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly
This is good to know. I have a friend who constantly thwarts my plans by playing Protection of Angels. I'm glad I can still at least defeat his heroes when he plays that card.
When did this happen? It doesn't say protect from evil special abilities it says evil cards, which includes characters. That makes me assume that being protected from a character would be just like being immune to them, in which case you would be protected from being defeated by the numbers.
-
The rulebook glossary defines "protect" as only protecting from special abilities.
-
Hmm...that clears it up. I should read the rulebook more often. :P
-
Then I think that should be changed. If you are protected, how can you get killed?
-
I am wearing an armor proof vest, I cannot die to a bullet, however I could still die of natural causes say a massive heart failure.
The Vest is PoA, the Heart attack is losing to the numbers.
-
I am going to shoot myself if we have this argument again. *Sigh*
-
Be sure to wear that bullet proof vest to protect yourself.
-
Then I'll just die of hypertension.
-
I am wearing an armor proof vest, I cannot die to a bullet, however I could still die of natural causes say a massive heart failure.
The Vest is PoA, the Heart attack is losing to the numbers.
I'm not sure this is an accurate analogy, since losing by the numbers is not natural causes. The evil force is causing the kill.
-
I am holding a shield (PoA). The enemy attack with a sword and fails (abilities). My enemy then pries it away and beats me to death (losing by the numbers).
-
So its more like being attacked by a facehugger? A vest wont stop that, but its still bad.
-
I am wearing an armor proof vest, I cannot die to a bullet, however I could still die of natural causes say a massive heart failure.
The Vest is PoA, the Heart attack is losing to the numbers.
I'm not sure this is an accurate analogy, since losing by the numbers is not natural causes. The evil force is causing the kill.
The Bullet is his Special ability, not all EC's have an SA/Bullet.
His numbers he always has so they're natural.
-
I am wearing an armor proof vest, I cannot die to a bullet, however I could still die of natural causes say a massive heart failure.
The Vest is PoA, the Heart attack is losing to the numbers.
I'm not sure this is an accurate analogy, since losing by the numbers is not natural causes. The evil force is causing the kill.
The Bullet is his Special ability, not all EC's have an SA/Bullet.
His numbers he always has so they're natural.
Yes, but again with a heart attack, the person's own body is causing the kill, not an outside force such as an evil army. But don't get me wrong, I'm pulling for being able to still kill by the numbers against Protection of Angels.
-
I am going to shoot myself if we have this argument again. *Sigh*
I'm sorry, but I'm a tournament judge and I need to know. If we ever had tournaments around here, that is.
I didn't stick it out until the end and I could find the ruling. Was there an official resolution?
-
PoA says you are protected from evil cards, so to me that says that nothing an evil character can do can hurt you. To be killed by the numbers by a evil card would be being harmed by a evil card. You can make all the analogies you want but these are the facts.
-
It's true, that is what protection means - in real life. However, in the game of Redemption, the term "protection" is given a definition more specific to the game.
-
Idea:
Lets not get into this argument again, but rather wait on someone who MADE the ruling to swing by and set the record straight again.
Less headaches.
-
Protection of Angels
Type: Hero Enh. • Brigade: Silver • Ability: 2 / 3 • Class: None • Special Ability: Interrupt the battle and protect all Heroes in play and set aside areas from evil cards until end of turn.
Protection from "evil cards" includes both special abilities and numbers.
A character protected by Protection of Angels can still be targeted by a negate ability because negate > protection - always, even when it doesn't directly target the protection.
-
Protection of Angels
Type: Hero Enh. • Brigade: Silver • Ability: 2 / 3 • Class: None • Special Ability: Interrupt the battle and protect all Heroes in play and set aside areas from evil cards until end of turn.
Protection from "evil cards" includes both special abilities and numbers.
A character protected by Protection of Angels can still be targeted by a negate ability because negate > protection - always, even when it doesn't directly target the protection.
Beast mode Gabe. 8)
-
Negative Effect
A negative effect is any effect from cards not of the same alignment (i.e., good, evil, or neutral) targeting a character.
wouldnt this definition include protection of angels not being affected by 12 fingered giant
or there again all isnt targeting is it?
-
I remember 100% that the ruling stated that protect does NOTHING against any form of negate. The only way to protect from a negate is with Cannot be Negated.
-
I remember 100% that the ruling stated that protect does NOTHING against any form of negate. The only way to protect from a negate is with Cannot be Negated.
+1
-
I remember 100% that the ruling stated that protect does NOTHING against any form of negate. The only way to protect from a negate is with Cannot be Negated.
+1
+1
-
I remember 100% that the ruling stated that protect does NOTHING against any form of negate. The only way to protect from a negate is with Cannot be Negated.
+1
+1
+1
+1
We both agreeses yes we does preciousssh. Nasty fat hobbits!
-
Wait... Gabe just agreed with me that you are protected from numbers, but that was not the current ruling on this thread. Anyone else official wanna comment?
-
Wait... Gabe just agreed with me that you are protected from numbers, but that was not the current ruling on this thread. Anyone else official wanna comment?
Tim's contrary ruling on the first page said it only protects from special abilities. It doesn't look like he read the SA. :P
-
Negative Effect
A negative effect is any effect from cards not of the same alignment (i.e., good, evil, or neutral) targeting a character.
and i just got this quote from here...
http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/index.php?topic=6537.0 (http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/index.php?topic=6537.0)
does this mean anything?
-
Negative Effect
A negative effect is any effect from cards not of the same alignment (i.e., good, evil, or neutral) targeting a character.
and i just got this quote from here...
http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/index.php?topic=6537.0 (http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/index.php?topic=6537.0)
does this mean anything?
No, not in relation to PoA since PoA doesn't mention negative effect.
-
So the rulebook definition of "protect" is irrelevant here?
I think it's time to rethink my return to hosting....
-
So the rulebook definition of "protect" is irrelevant here?
I think it's time to rethink my return to hosting....
Good! Since I'm stepping down you can take my seat on the bench, hopefully without any crazy Senate confirmation hearings. ;)
-
The ruling is protect only protects against SAs, not numbers. Why can we not live with it? We had a huge discussion about it earlier and it has run its course.
-
The ruling is protect only protects against SAs, not numbers.
Gabe is a Redemption stud and he says otherwise:
Protection from "evil cards" includes both special abilities and numbers.
Clearly there is a problem if hosts are ruling it differently. The REG supports the rulebook that "protect" only affects SAs, so that is how I would have ruled it. However, Gabe does not come across as a rebel, so there must be something that made him certain of his post.
I'm just wondering what that something was....
-
Seemed my comment got ignored... so I'll post it again.
Idea:
Lets not get into this argument again, but rather wait on someone who MADE the ruling to swing by and set the record straight again.
Less headaches.
-
yea so it can just go unnoticed until some tournament somewhere. *cough* Nats *cough* ;D
-
Seemed my comment got ignored... so I'll post it again.
Idea:
Lets not get into this argument again, but rather wait on someone who MADE the ruling to swing by and set the record straight again.
Less headaches.
So did the original PoA thread get deleted or archived? If not, just go there to get your answer. :)
-
I'll go search, but if hosts are still ruling differently after said thread, then the thread is apparently irrelevant.
Besides, we're back to the whole REG update thing again. If I am hosting a tourney, I will check the REG. Do hosts really do a "Search" on the whole forum and look for every recent thread about the cards they are ruling on?
-
Thats why I hope a single place can be created to be a second stop for rulings, if it ain't in either it doesn't affect the rules. I think it would go along way towards easing some of the ruling tensions.
-
I'll go search, but if hosts are still ruling differently after said thread, then the thread is apparently irrelevant.
Besides, we're back to the whole REG update thing again. If I am hosting a tourney, I will check the REG. Do hosts really do a "Search" on the whole forum and look for every recent thread about the cards they are ruling on?
Only if someone involved in the ruling question can remember there being a discussion thread, otherwise no.
-
I'll go search, but if hosts are still ruling differently after said thread, then the thread is apparently irrelevant.
Besides, we're back to the whole REG update thing again. If I am hosting a tourney, I will check the REG. Do hosts really do a "Search" on the whole forum and look for every recent thread about the cards they are ruling on?
Only if someone involved in the ruling question can remember there being a discussion thread, otherwise no.
But now we're back to judges ruling differently in different tournaments because some judges may be aware/have been involved in the thread, and others may not have been. They will rule differently if all they have to go by is the REG.
-
The ruling is protect only protects against SAs, not numbers. Why can we not live with it? We had a huge discussion about it earlier and it has run its course.
The card special ability on POA contradicts this conclusion.
-
Seemed my comment got ignored... so I'll post it again.
Idea:
Lets not get into this argument again, but rather wait on someone who MADE the ruling to swing by and set the record straight again.
Less headaches.
So did the original PoA thread get deleted or archived? If not, just go there to get your answer. :)
I couldn't find it, that's why I started this madness with fear and trembling.
I think 2 things:
1. It says all evil cards, so that's very strong
2. If you are protected from numbers... that's very odd and could break the game
-
1. It says all evil cards, so that's very strong
2. If you are protected from numbers... that's very odd and could break the game
Not broken. YOu can still prevent the rescue by being stronger than them on defense. That isnt a number that harms angels, it just prevents them from rescuing the LS. But it is a very strong card and it is a card that I havent payed much attention to until this thread. My angel deck has to be revised a bit now.
I agree with Gabe that it should protect from being discarded by the numbers though because it says Evil cards and not just Evil SA's
-
1. It says all evil cards, so that's very strong
2. If you are protected from numbers... that's very odd and could break the game
Not broken. YOu can still prevent the rescue by being stronger than them on defense. That isnt a number that harms angels, it just prevents them from rescuing the LS. But it is a very strong card and it is a card that I havent payed much attention to until this thread. My angel deck has to be revised a bit now.
I agree with Gabe that it should protect from being discarded by the numbers though because it says Evil cards and not just Evil SA's
So, in effect all heroes become immune to all evil cards,but the battle keeps going? Can't lose, but it could still be a stale-mate.
-
Everyone seems to think that protect is the same as immune, when they are actually distinctly different effects.
Protect allows cards to be unaffected by specified special abilities. [In this case, that would be special abilities on evil cards.]
Immunity protects a character from being defeated or directly affected by another card. [This is not what we are talking about.]
If PoA said to make all heroes immune to all evil cards, that would be different, but protect doesn't do the same thing.
-
That's right Bubbleboy. However, the Separatists will not listen to the voice of reason, so ready the battlements!
-
Whyyyyyyyyy are we having this whole argument again?
It reached a conclusion already... BRYOOOOOOOOOOOON!!!! HEEEEEEEEEEEELP!!!!
-
Whyyyyyyyyy are we having this whole argument again?
Clearly the influence of the Sith has blinded us all..... :maul:
-
Whyyyyyyyyy are we having this whole argument again?
Clearly the influence of the Sith has blinded us all..... :maul:
I had to quote your post just to see Darth Marble.
-
LOL
Yessss...... Feel the power of the marble.....
FYI, those of you not logged in will not see the marble. You must log in first.
-
LOL
Yessss...... Feel the power of the marble.....
FYI, those of you not logged in will not see the marble. You must log in first.
And switch to Metallistic mode, not sure which others do it.
-
Enterprise does :D
-
Everyone seems to think that protect is the same as immune, when they are actually distinctly different effects.
Protect allows cards to be unaffected by specified special abilities. [In this case, that would be special abilities on evil cards.]
Immunity protects a character from being defeated or directly affected by another card. [This is not what we are talking about.]
If PoA said to make all heroes immune to all evil cards, that would be different, but protect doesn't do the same thing.
In this case, for the sake of thinking it through, isn't it the same?
The only outcome, if the card is not negated, is a win for the Hero, or a stalemate, right?
-
Whyyyyyyyyy are we having this whole argument again?
Clearly the influence of the Sith has blinded us all..... :maul:
I had to quote your post just to see Darth Marble.
Still looks like a ladybug to me. ::)
-
The REG correctly states that protect applies to special abilities. It can be stated another way in that you cannot target something that is protected, and special abilities target. Numbers may be on the card, but they aren't in the scope of what protect is meant to do. I still prefer we stay with the REG and not extend protect to numbers. I can't tell you why the wording on Protection of Angels is as it appears, but can surmise that it may simply be referring to the special abilities on various types of cards, rather than limiting it to a character or an enhancement.
That's my 2 cents.
Mike
-
The REG correctly states that protect applies to special abilities. It can be stated another way in that you cannot target something that is protected, and special abilities target. Numbers may be on the card, but they aren't in the scope of what protect is meant to do. I still prefer we stay with the REG and not extend protect to numbers. I can't tell you why the wording on Protection of Angels is as it appears, but can surmise that it may simply be referring to the special abilities on various types of cards, rather than limiting it to a character or an enhancement.
That's my 2 cents.
Mike
best explanation so far
-
There's probably a reason for that.
-
It has always been my understanding that protect shields the target(s) from the full effect in question, and not only special abilities. Otherwise, my Sadducee defense just took a major blow.
-
If you look in the rulebook, I think you'll find that the REG wasn't the author of protect being limited to special abilities. The REG simply restated what the rulebook already had. Sometimes our understanding needs to be bent straight again ;)
Mike
-
So, Mike, are you saying that a Fortress that protects a specific civilization from discard (not just discard special abilities) would not protect characters of that civilization from discard when their toughness is reduced to 0 or less (because the discard is by game rule, not special ability)?
-
No, this isn't just something I invented out of thin air. This has been around for a while. Look here where Tim says the same thing:
http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/index.php?topic=16468.msg257590#msg257590 (http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/index.php?topic=16468.msg257590#msg257590)
And if protect only applies to special abilities, then Enoch is a worthless card that people have been playing wrong basically since he was printed.
I mean, it's not for nothing that we add the word "abilities" to many of these protects in development. At least, I always thought not.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
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.
-
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.
-
Cool! I don't need to prepare for any T2 defense that uses Crown of Thorns.
-
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
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
Exactly. Excellent point.
-
Is there any way we can get an official ruling before Nationals?
-
Hey,
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 :D
Tschow,
Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly
-
"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 ;)
-
Hey,
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
-
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.
;)
-
That is what is being worked on now. Have patience.
Mike
-
See, that's what I'm talking about. "Patience" is a big word. Just say, "Wait!" ;D
-
Hey,
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
-
"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?
-
Therefore they don't get shuffled. Right?
Please say, "Yes." Please, please, please, please, please, please.
-
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:
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. :P
-
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.
-
You see? I don't get headaches when I fish. :rollin:
-
Some people just can't let a dead horse die. ::)
-
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.
The 'lost protection' idea from the REG brought up the argument that the Color Guard wouldn't protect EC's from ANB a long time ago (like, before I took a year+ long absence from the boards), and it was ruled then that the REG was wrong, but that Kingdoms was different because of the cards follow hosts line of thinking. So the characters definitely don't lose protection, they just get tossed in the ocean with the concrete bunker they are in.
-
Especially with persistent people such as yourself. :P
That was kind of you to choose that description instead of "annoyingly stubborn" :)
Now if you rule that the EC's go wherever the Fortress goes, then I will buy that similar to the way that dorthy went to the land of Oz because she was in the house that went to Oz
But the "new" REG quote indicates that the protection would protect "from the effect" of shuffling of the game rule.
-
The REG also states that when a card (other than a site with Lost Souls in it) is discarded that the contents are discarded in it. We went through this many years ago, and that should be how the REG should be interpretted. Perhaps the wording isn't clear.
The protect SA on Goshen really does not apply to characters since they aren't being targeted - Goshen is being targetted and it isn't protected. This has everything to do with (1) the fortress is being discarded (2) the characters are in it, and (3) character cards go to the discard pile with the fortress.
Did I fall asleep at some point and miss a new ruling in the past year? Are players really taking characters out of Goshen and putting them in territory when ANB is played?
Mike
-
See Protect - Special Conditions
http://www.redemptionreg.com/REG/specialconditions10.htm (http://www.redemptionreg.com/REG/specialconditions10.htm)
Mike
-
The REG also states that when a card (other than a site with Lost Souls in it) is discarded that the contents are discarded in it. We went through this many years ago, and that should be how the REG should be interpretted. Perhaps the wording isn't clear.
The problem here is that the REG quote that you pointed to in your last post states that ECs in KotW do NOT follow KotW if it is discarded, but return to territory instead.
Did I fall asleep at some point and miss a new ruling in the past year? Are players really taking characters out of Goshen and putting them in territory when ANB is played?
Don't worry, I think that everyone is still shuffling GCs in Goshen and ECs in KotW when people play ANB. But it does seem inconsistent with the old ruling mentioned above. And it also seems inconsistent with the new REG definition that Tim just posted that would save Sadducees from the game rule causing a discard effect.