Cactus Game Design Message Boards

Does it still count as a draw ability if my opponent has Rain becomes dust (If opponent draws because of his special ability reveal the cards instead. Place lost souls in land of bondage and discard the rest). Essentially if I "drew" three cards (which were then discarded) and my opponent blocks with Foreign wives (protect foreign wives if opponent had drawn 5 or more cards this turn), would he gain protection, or because the cards were insteaded to discard/land of bondage, does it not count as a "draw" or "draw ability" in the case of something like Priests of Zeus (if opponent draws because of his special ability discard a card in his territory except a lost soul). A lot of strategies I can think of could be souped up if it still counts as a "draw" or "draw ability," however because of the "instead" in the cards special ability I'm guessing it doesn't count as a "draw" or "draw ability."
I hope this isn't confusing, and thanks in advance for all/any responses.

In that case I have a new deck I want to build. Heheheh.

No cards were drawn, as that was insteaded.  The act of drawing never occurred; instead, there was a reveal (followed by place and discard).

However, I am not so certain that the player did not "use a draw ability".  If a draw ability later gets negated, did the player still not use the ability, which is activating it to perform some action or trigger an event?  This requires definition, other thoughts?

Posting Rules and Guidelines
4: Redemption is Redemption.  We understand that other games have different rules or ways of handling abilities or card types of similar names, but Redemption is not those games.  So, while it is perfectly acceptable to make suggestions to make the game better or more consistent based on other games, do not use the rules of other games to justify a position taken on current Redemption rules or rulings.

Rules for other games do not have a place in this current discussion, only the rules of Redemption and precedents established as a result.  Please keep the thread on-topic and base reasoning on Redemption rules and other rulings that may be related.

In this case Foreign Wives and Priests of Zeus both specify "draws" or "cards drawn" which doesn't happen if RBD insteads it. So that part is definite.

I'm always happy to discuss hypotheticals, though!

It starts out as a draw ability (so cards that prevent a draw ability could prevent purple Peter, though not Generous Widow). If an ability is prevented it doesn't happen, so a card that triggers when opponent "uses a draw ability" would not trigger from a prevented draw. Negate is defined: "A negate ability takes a previously completed ability and undoes the effect of that ability." Negate also works as a prevent.

I could see it going either way, but I personally think that negating an ability should be the same has having prevented it, i.e.: it never actually happened. Thus, anything that would trigger (or did trigger) if opponent "used a draw ability" would not trigger (or would untrigger, via the currently rules of cascading negates). I know that's complicated but I feel that's the most consistent with current rules.

I apologize about that, I paraphrased his ability from memory which translated "when opponent draws because of their special ability" to "when opponent uses a draw ability." Sorry about the mixup. Thanks Browarod and Redoubter for clearing that up.

Personally to answer the hypothetical, I'd say they did use a draw ability they just didn't draw. If I play search on my prophet while my opponent has nazzy out, I still used a search ability even if it accomplished nothing.

I thought we were dealing with an instead from RBD not a negate...?

But regardless, let's forget that example anyway. I think what it comes down to is this:

When RBD insteads the draw it doesn't count as you having drawn, but you had to have used a draw ability otherwise RBD wouldn't have triggered. So you used a draw ability that didn't result in you drawing.

But he did use a draw ability even if, with RBD up, he isn't one. If he hadn't than RBD would never have fired.

When you activate a special ability on a card you have used that ability, even if another ability changes the result of the effect.

In the examples given, if RBD changed the draw to a reveal and play/discard, then you did not draw cards, but you did use a draw ability. You did not use a reveal/play/discard ability because RBD is not an ability you control, it's your opponents, so they used a reveal/play/discard ability.

When you activate a special ability on a card you have used that ability, even if another ability changes the result of the effect.

In the examples given, if RBD changed the draw to a reveal and play/discard, then you did not draw cards, but you did use a draw ability. You did not use a reveal/play/discard ability because RBD is not an ability you control, it's your opponents, so they used a reveal/play/discard ability.

Works for me, thanks for the confirmation Gabe!

So a draw ability insteaded by RBD would still count for Drunkenness, per the example above. Pretty devastating if you make the mistake of using a draw in that scenario, haha.

Gabe, what would happen if my opponent played a draw ability (RBD is not up) and I negate it, and then play Drunkenness; would that negated draw still count as having been "used"?

Makes sense to me! Would a prevented ability also be considered "used" but without effect/benefit, or is that not even used at all since it never had a chance to activate?

You know what they say about great minds.

That's what I was thinking as well, hooray! Thanks for all the answers.