Author Topic: Protection of Angels (Read 16064 times)

Lamborghini_diablo · « **Reply #25 on:** July 13, 2009, 01:27:37 AM »

So its more like being attacked by a facehugger? A vest wont stop that, but its still bad.

Red Dragon Thorn · « **Reply #26 on:** July 13, 2009, 01:29:53 AM »

Quote from: FresnoRedemption on July 13, 2009, 01:25:08 AM

Quote from: Red Dragon Thorn on July 13, 2009, 01:15:45 AM
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.

FresnoRedemption · « **Reply #27 on:** July 13, 2009, 01:36:54 AM »

Quote from: Red Dragon Thorn on July 13, 2009, 01:29:53 AM

Quote from: FresnoRedemption on July 13, 2009, 01:25:08 AM
Quote from: Red Dragon Thorn on July 13, 2009, 01:15:45 AM
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.

metalpsalm · « **Reply #28 on:** July 13, 2009, 07:36:00 AM »

Quote from: Janissary on July 13, 2009, 01:17:01 AM

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?

sepjazzwarrior · « **Reply #29 on:** July 13, 2009, 08:21:32 AM »

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.

BubbleBoy · « **Reply #30 on:** July 13, 2009, 08:32:28 AM »

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.

Lamborghini_diablo · « **Reply #31 on:** July 13, 2009, 09:44:40 AM »

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.

Gabe · « **Reply #32 on:** July 13, 2009, 10:08:26 AM »

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.

TheHobbit13 · « **Reply #33 on:** July 13, 2009, 01:03:30 PM »

Quote from: BrianGabe on July 13, 2009, 10:08:26 AM

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.

RTSmaniac · « **Reply #34 on:** July 13, 2009, 01:26:01 PM »

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?

Lamborghini_diablo · « **Reply #35 on:** July 13, 2009, 01:40:41 PM »

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.

Gabe · « **Reply #36 on:** July 13, 2009, 01:57:10 PM »

Quote from: Lamborghini_diablo on July 13, 2009, 01:40:41 PM

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.

STAMP · « **Reply #37 on:** July 13, 2009, 01:58:51 PM »

Quote from: BrianGabe on July 13, 2009, 01:57:10 PM

Quote from: Lamborghini_diablo on July 13, 2009, 01:40:41 PM
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.

TheHobbit13 · « **Reply #38 on:** July 13, 2009, 02:12:14 PM »

Quote from: STAMP on July 13, 2009, 01:58:51 PM

Quote from: BrianGabe on July 13, 2009, 01:57:10 PM
Quote from: Lamborghini_diablo on July 13, 2009, 01:40:41 PM
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.

We both agreeses yes we does preciousssh. Nasty fat hobbits!

lightningninja · « **Reply #39 on:** July 13, 2009, 02:15:41 PM »

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?

Gabe · « **Reply #40 on:** July 13, 2009, 02:16:49 PM »

Quote from: lightningninja on July 13, 2009, 02:15:41 PM

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.

RTSmaniac · « **Reply #41 on:** July 13, 2009, 04:25:37 PM »

Quote

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
does this mean anything?

Gabe · « **Reply #42 on:** July 13, 2009, 04:30:53 PM »

Quote from: RTSmaniac on July 13, 2009, 04:25:37 PM

Quote
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
does this mean anything?

No, not in relation to PoA since PoA doesn't mention negative effect.

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #43 on:** July 13, 2009, 04:58:13 PM »

So the rulebook definition of "protect" is irrelevant here?

I think it's time to rethink my return to hosting....

STAMP · « **Reply #44 on:** July 13, 2009, 05:12:16 PM »

Quote from: YourMathTeacher on July 13, 2009, 04:58:13 PM

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.

Alex_Olijar · « **Reply #45 on:** July 13, 2009, 05:31:52 PM »

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.

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #46 on:** July 13, 2009, 05:37:08 PM »

Quote from: Janissary on July 13, 2009, 05:31:52 PM

The ruling is protect only protects against SAs, not numbers.

Gabe is a Redemption stud and he says otherwise:

Quote from: BrianGabe on July 13, 2009, 10:08:26 AM

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....

Lamborghini_diablo · « **Reply #47 on:** July 13, 2009, 05:38:23 PM »

Seemed my comment got ignored... so I'll post it again.

Quote from: Lamborghini_diablo on July 13, 2009, 09:44:40 AM

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.

RTSmaniac · « **Reply #48 on:** July 13, 2009, 05:41:22 PM »

yea so it can just go unnoticed until some tournament somewhere. *cough* Nats *cough*

STAMP · « **Reply #49 on:** July 13, 2009, 05:42:41 PM »

Quote from: Lamborghini_diablo on July 13, 2009, 05:38:23 PM

Seemed my comment got ignored... so I'll post it again.

Quote from: Lamborghini_diablo on July 13, 2009, 09:44:40 AM
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.

News:

Author Topic: Protection of Angels (Read 16064 times)

Lamborghini_diablo

FresnoRedemption

Lamborghini_diablo

TheHobbit13

Lamborghini_diablo

TheHobbit13

Lamborghini_diablo