Author Topic: Goliath  (Read 4369 times)

Offline Minister Polarius

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15920
  • Grand Minister of Music and Video Games
    • -
    • East Central Region
    • Macclelland Music
Re: Goliath
« Reply #25 on: November 15, 2010, 04:45:06 AM »
+3
No, because it's really errata. Disregard any errata disguised as play-as.

Also, YMT, that's just silly. And very, very contrary to the way rulings have been made for a long time and intuitive reading of cards and rules.
I am not talking about T2 unless I am explicitly talking about T2. Also Mayhem is fine now somehow!

Offline SomeKittens

  • Tournament Host
  • Trade Count: (+10)
  • *****
  • Posts: 8102
    • -
    • Northeast Region
Re: Goliath
« Reply #26 on: November 15, 2010, 09:17:50 AM »
0
I always thought WoP also protected you from side battles....
Mind not the ignorant fool on the other side of the screen!-BubbleBoy
Code: [Select]
postcount.add(1);

Offline Professoralstad

  • Tournament Host, Redemption Elder
  • Trade Count: (+47)
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10841
  • Everything is Awesome!
    • -
    • North Central Region
Re: Goliath
« Reply #27 on: November 15, 2010, 11:17:55 AM »
0
I always thought WoP also protected you from side battles....

It does. Not sure why the Play As was added...it severely limits what WoP is supposed to do, and has been ruled to do for years. It stops any action that would force a character in your opponent's territory into battle, including banding, CtB, and side battles.

As to the Goliath question, forced drawing was ruled to be allowed while JT is up (so that Mayhem doesn't make a JT player have no hand) so I would rule the same way here: since your opponent is the one to take the action of putting the character into battle, just like it is his action of drawing the cards, I would say that he is allowed to do that.

Also, I think YMT is right on actually. Centurion's Proclamation is a convert ability on an opponent's card, and Judas says:
Protect this evil character from convert and discard abilities on opponent’s cards while he remains in play. Cannot be negated.

What rulings are you referring to, Polarius? It would help to know, just in case this topic needs to be more closely examined by the elders. I thought we had solved issues like this (opponent's actions on your cards) when JT was changed to a protect.
Press 1 for more options.

Offline Minister Polarius

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15920
  • Grand Minister of Music and Video Games
    • -
    • East Central Region
    • Macclelland Music
Re: Goliath
« Reply #28 on: November 15, 2010, 11:42:54 AM »
+1
Ok, so bad example on Judas, and you know full well what I mean. Blocking with a character that's protected from Conversion but not Capture, can you Convert him anyway when Proclamation is played?

The ruling I'm talking about is Dove v. Protected/Immune cards. Now Dove can suddenly Discard a Protected character in battle?

Also, I thought the reason forced drawing still worked is because of the wording on JT (drawing not being considered "removed from deck" for Redemption purposes), not because of a universal loophole on Protect that makes it stop Protecting if the card has "opponent must/may" wording on it.
I am not talking about T2 unless I am explicitly talking about T2. Also Mayhem is fine now somehow!

Offline Prof Underwood

  • Redemption Elder
  • Trade Count: (+7)
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8597
    • -
    • East Central Region
Re: Goliath
« Reply #29 on: November 15, 2010, 12:59:42 PM »
+1
Also, I thought the reason forced drawing still worked is because of the wording on JT (drawing not being considered "removed from deck" for Redemption purposes), not because of a universal loophole on Protect that makes it stop Protecting if the card has "opponent must/may" wording on it.
This was my understanding as well.

Offline YourMathTeacher

  • Tournament Host
  • Trade Count: (+80)
  • *****
  • Posts: 11089
    • -
    • Southeast Region
Re: Goliath
« Reply #30 on: November 15, 2010, 05:42:10 PM »
0
Also, I thought the reason forced drawing still worked is because of the wording on JT (drawing not being considered "removed from deck" for Redemption purposes), not because of a universal loophole on Protect that makes it stop Protecting if the card has "opponent must/may" wording on it.
This was my understanding as well.

I was not aware of that ruling. So, "drawing" a card does not remove it from the deck? I'm not sure I would agree that this is more intuitive than protecting against player actions.
My wife is a hottie.

Offline SomeKittens

  • Tournament Host
  • Trade Count: (+10)
  • *****
  • Posts: 8102
    • -
    • Northeast Region
Re: Goliath
« Reply #31 on: November 15, 2010, 07:52:01 PM »
0
Well, technically, the opponent isn't removing it.
Mind not the ignorant fool on the other side of the screen!-BubbleBoy
Code: [Select]
postcount.add(1);

Offline YourMathTeacher

  • Tournament Host
  • Trade Count: (+80)
  • *****
  • Posts: 11089
    • -
    • Southeast Region
Re: Goliath
« Reply #32 on: November 15, 2010, 09:04:35 PM »
0
Well, technically, the opponent isn't removing it.

That would have been the previous understanding of why forced draws still work, based on player actions. This new ruling (which I have no idea how "new" it really is) would say that player actions are irrelevant. JT protects from opponents' SAs, but forced draws are still allowed since they are now defined as not actually removing a card from the deck.

To me that is more confusing rather than less confusing. But, then again, I do have a few screws loose.
My wife is a hottie.

Offline Minister Polarius

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15920
  • Grand Minister of Music and Video Games
    • -
    • East Central Region
    • Macclelland Music
Re: Goliath
« Reply #33 on: November 15, 2010, 09:27:48 PM »
0
Either way is a little confusing. But I believe it's far more expedient and better for the game to simply exclude "drawing" from "removing from deck," just like Eve is totally different than Susanna, rather than making "opponent may/must" get around all protection.
I am not talking about T2 unless I am explicitly talking about T2. Also Mayhem is fine now somehow!

 


SimplePortal 2.3.3 © 2008-2010, SimplePortal