Author Topic: Protection of Angels (Read 16039 times)

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #50 on:** July 13, 2009, 05:47:54 PM »

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?

Korunks · « **Reply #51 on:** July 13, 2009, 05:54:45 PM »

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.

STAMP · « **Reply #52 on:** July 13, 2009, 06:14:32 PM »

Quote from: YourMathTeacher on July 13, 2009, 05:47:54 PM

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.

FresnoRedemption · « **Reply #53 on:** July 13, 2009, 06:17:40 PM »

Quote from: STAMP on July 13, 2009, 06:14:32 PM

Quote from: YourMathTeacher on July 13, 2009, 05:47:54 PM
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.

TheHobbit13 · « **Reply #54 on:** July 13, 2009, 06:33:05 PM »

Quote from: Janissary 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.

The card special ability on POA contradicts this conclusion.

metalpsalm · « **Reply #55 on:** July 13, 2009, 07:29:55 PM »

Quote from: STAMP 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.

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

crustpope · « **Reply #56 on:** July 13, 2009, 08:43:18 PM »

Quote from: metalpsalm on July 13, 2009, 07:29:55 PM

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

metalpsalm · « **Reply #57 on:** July 13, 2009, 09:05:46 PM »

Quote from: crustpope on July 13, 2009, 08:43:18 PM

Quote from: metalpsalm on July 13, 2009, 07:29:55 PM
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.

BubbleBoy · « **Reply #58 on:** July 13, 2009, 09:47:58 PM »

Everyone seems to think that protect is the same as immune, when they are actually distinctly different effects.

Quote from: REG/Glossary of Terms/Protect

Protect allows cards to be unaffected by specified special abilities. [In this case, that would be special abilities on evil cards.]

Quote from: REG/Glossary of Terms/Immune

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.

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #59 on:** July 13, 2009, 10:05:50 PM »

That's right Bubbleboy. However, the Separatists will not listen to the voice of reason, so ready the battlements!

Lamborghini_diablo · « **Reply #60 on:** July 13, 2009, 10:09:35 PM »

Whyyyyyyyyy are we having this whole argument again?

It reached a conclusion already... BRYOOOOOOOOOOOON!!!! HEEEEEEEEEEEELP!!!!

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #61 on:** July 13, 2009, 10:14:03 PM »

Quote from: Lamborghini_diablo on July 13, 2009, 10:09:35 PM

Whyyyyyyyyy are we having this whole argument again?

Clearly the influence of the Sith has blinded us all.....

Lamborghini_diablo · « **Reply #62 on:** July 13, 2009, 10:14:44 PM »

Quote from: YourMathTeacher on July 13, 2009, 10:14:03 PM

Quote from: Lamborghini_diablo on July 13, 2009, 10:09:35 PM
Whyyyyyyyyy are we having this whole argument again?

Clearly the influence of the Sith has blinded us all.....

I had to quote your post just to see Darth Marble.

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #63 on:** July 13, 2009, 10:16:28 PM »

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.

Lamborghini_diablo · « **Reply #64 on:** July 13, 2009, 10:27:13 PM »

Quote from: YourMathTeacher on July 13, 2009, 10:16:28 PM

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.

The Guardian · « **Reply #65 on:** July 13, 2009, 10:28:55 PM »

Enterprise does

metalpsalm · « **Reply #66 on:** July 13, 2009, 10:39:34 PM »

Quote from: BubbleBoy on July 13, 2009, 09:47:58 PM

Everyone seems to think that protect is the same as immune, when they are actually distinctly different effects.

Quote from: REG/Glossary of Terms/Protect
Protect allows cards to be unaffected by specified special abilities. [In this case, that would be special abilities on evil cards.]
Quote from: REG/Glossary of Terms/Immune
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?

STAMP · « **Reply #67 on:** July 14, 2009, 12:39:44 AM »

Quote from: Lamborghini_diablo on July 13, 2009, 10:14:44 PM

Quote from: YourMathTeacher on July 13, 2009, 10:14:03 PM
Quote from: Lamborghini_diablo on July 13, 2009, 10:09:35 PM
Whyyyyyyyyy are we having this whole argument again?

Clearly the influence of the Sith has blinded us all.....

I had to quote your post just to see Darth Marble.

Still looks like a ladybug to me.

frisian9 · « **Reply #68 on:** July 14, 2009, 10:46:27 PM »

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

metalpsalm · « **Reply #69 on:** July 14, 2009, 11:01:25 PM »

Quote from: frisian9 on July 14, 2009, 10:46:27 PM

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

Alex_Olijar · « **Reply #70 on:** July 14, 2009, 11:06:42 PM »

There's probably a reason for that.

The Schaef · « **Reply #71 on:** July 14, 2009, 11:08:12 PM »

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.

frisian9 · « **Reply #72 on:** July 14, 2009, 11:24:35 PM »

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

Gabe · « **Reply #73 on:** July 14, 2009, 11:31:14 PM »

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)?

The Schaef · « **Reply #74 on:** July 14, 2009, 11:40:34 PM »

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

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.

News:

Author Topic: Protection of Angels (Read 16039 times)

FresnoRedemption

TheHobbit13

Lamborghini_diablo

Lamborghini_diablo

Lamborghini_diablo

The Schaef

The Schaef