Cactus Game Design Message Boards
Redemption® Collectible Trading Card Game HQ => Official Rules & Errata => Ruling Questions => Topic started by: Warrior_Monk on July 16, 2013, 04:55:48 AM
-
Okay, so let's suppose I have all 12 good disciples out, and I just drew 11 by putting my Andrew to the bottom of my deck with Fishing Boat. I then pull all the disciples out of my Fishing Boat, and throw down Andrew for good measure (I'm obviously playing 2 reds and a purple). I then rescue with Thaddeus, who "Protects (a bunch of stuff including himself) from Evil Characters with toughness (12) or less. Cannot be Interrupted." My opponent then throws down Foreign Wives, who is "...Protected from cards used by an opponent. Cannot be negated."
Who has initiative?
-
It is a stalemate if both are protected from each other so Thaddeus was the first car played, FW the second, which means Thaddeus goes first.
Kirk
-
Since they're both protected from each other, this is a stalemate situation. Thad gets initiative.
Instaposted by Kirk
-
Isn't FW protected from being protected or am I remembering Thad's ability wrong?
-
Isn't there a ruling that a card can't be protected from its own ability? Or is that only in certain situations?
-
Isn't FW protected from being protected or am I remembering Thad's ability wrong?
Thaddeus - Protect all cards in play, set-aside area, Artifact piles, hands, and decks from Evil Characters with toughness X or less. Cannot be interrupted.
Protect (Default Condition 3) - Characters cannot be protected from themselves.
You're remembering right, should've checked that wording before posting. Would that default condition of protect apply here?
-
I think so. I was drawing an parallel to Uzzah in my mind but that doesn't matter since he can't protect souls anyway.
-
_JM_ is right, Foreign Wives' protection still activates, regardless of Thaddeus, because characters cannot be protected from themselves:
Default Conditions
Protect abilities last until the end of the phase in which they are used.
Protect abilities target cards in play.
Characters cannot be protected from themselves.
Therefore, while Thaddeus does protect Foreign Wives from EC with toughness X or less, it cannot protect her from herself. Her protection then activates, since she is not protected from it, and now she is protected from opponents.
Since both characters are protected in this situation from the numbers as well, we have a stalemate. FW was played last, so the holder of Thaddeus has initiative.
-
Does protect also protect from the numbers, not just the SA?
-
Does protect also protect from the numbers, not just the SA?
Correct.
-
Then this entry on the Wiki is incorrect? Or do I just misunderstand it?
"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 cards only protects from being targeted by the special abilities of those cards, not from game rules influenced by those cards."
This is talking about something else. This rule is talking about things like a brown card that "discards a hero and search deck for a site and put it in play" If there was a hero that was "protected from discard abilities", then the first part of the brown card would NOT be able to target that card for discard. However if the brown card pulled out a Samaria site in the right situation (GoS & evil King of Israel already in play, and the hero has a defense of 6 or less), then the hero would still be discarded by the gamerule about cards hitting 0 or less defense.
-
"Protection from cards only protects from being targeted by the special abilities of those cards, not from game rules influenced by those cards."
This is talking about something else. This rule is talking about things like a brown card that "discards a hero and search deck for a site and put it in play" If there was a hero that was "protected from discard abilities", then the first part of the brown card would NOT be able to target that card for discard. However if the brown card pulled out a Samaria site in the right situation (GoS & evil King of Israel already in play, and the hero has a defense of 6 or less), then the hero would still be discarded by the gamerule about cards hitting 0 or less defense.
I think DDiceRC may be interpreting it correctly.
Protection from cards only protects from being targeted by the special abilities of those cards, not from game rules influenced by those cards.
Protection of Angels says "Interrupt the battle and protect all heroes in play and set aside areas from evil cards until end of turn."
Protection from effects protects from game rules that result in those effects and cards with special abilities that result in those effects.
Whereas Joseph says: "Search deck for Storehouse or Goshen. Protect sons of Jacob from discard. Enhancements with “Joseph” in title or reference cannot be negated."
These two cards illustrate that there are two things you can be protected from, Cards or Effects. Therefore, I'm inclined to believe that the first quote should be taken literally. If you're protected from a card, you are only protected from the special abilities on that card.
I know it's been ruled on the forums that protection from cards = protection from numbers as well, but that's not what the new REG says. In fact, nothing in the definition of Protect specifies that you can be protected from the numbers of a card.
-
We need to have a consistent ruling that affects relevant SAs. For instance, does "negate an evil card" also negate the numbers? I know it used to be ruled that it did. I think that negating and protecting should have the same default with regard to numbers, whatever that may end up being.
-
We need to have a consistent ruling that affects relevant SAs. For instance, does "negate an evil card" also negate the numbers? I know it used to be ruled that it did. I think that negating and protecting should have the same default with regard to numbers, whatever that may end up being.
I don't know that that's necessary. I don't really care if negate applies to numbers as well, but I don't believe that the current system (negates don't matter with numbers, protects do) isn't so complicated to matter.
-
If Peter negated numbers on demons that would be pretty powerful, so there has to be some distinction. Or if Foul Spirit negated heroes... wow y
-
I don't know that that's necessary. I don't really care if negate applies to numbers as well, but I don't believe that the current system (negates don't matter with numbers, protects do) isn't so complicated to matter.
Not to you, because you are an experienced player. I'm always on the lookout for new players, especially now that we have new starters that will hopefully bring them in. The targets for negate and protect should not have different defaults, IMO. Personally, I think that they should only target SAs. I kind of like having an old-school numbers battle ensue when the characters are protected from everything else. That will get rid of some chump blocks and chump rescues. New players will not enjoy being able to do nothing to stop an opponent. New players want battles, and lots of them. (This is still just my opinion, though)
-
The problem is Foreign Wives was made to counter "The Deck", Isaiah, and FBTNB. If FW only protects against SA's it counters neither of these. All I am saying is changing a rule like that defeats the purpose of the card.
-
The problem is Foreign Wives was made to counter "The Deck", Isaiah, and FBTNB. If FW only protects against SA's it counters neither of these. All I am saying is changing a rule like that defeats the purpose of the card.
Counters banding via HHI recur: Check.
Protected from CBN abilities: Check
That's really all it needs. Thadd is really the only card that gives FW a hard time, and you could just win by numbers in that case.
I think it would be better for the game if Protection from cards only protects from the abilities on the cards. cards like Thadd, FW, and AutO remain strong, but you can still defeat them by the numbers.
-
The problem is Foreign Wives was made to counter "The Deck", Isaiah, and FBTNB. If FW only protects against SA's it counters neither of these. All I am saying is changing a rule like that defeats the purpose of the card.
This is true. I'm surprised that it was not made clear in the REG that protection from cards includes protection from numbers, but I know that rule was established a long time ago with Thaddeus. I could see arguments made to change that, but as I recall that argument was made a long time ago and I don't think much has changed in regards to the game state.
As someone who thinks Foreign Wives is a great card that is balanced by the mere fact that it requires your opponent to trigger its ability, I agree that it would be disappointing to see it unable to effectively counter the strategies that it was designed against. But I could see why others who think that it is overkill might be happier with such a ruling. My guess is that it will just be clarified in the REG that protection works as it has since the Thaddeus ruling.
-
The problem is Foreign Wives was made to counter "The Deck", Isaiah, and FBTNB. If FW only protects against SA's it counters neither of these. All I am saying is changing a rule like that defeats the purpose of the card.
This is true. I'm surprised that it was not made clear in the REG that protection from cards includes protection from numbers, but I know that rule was established a long time ago with Thaddeus. I could see arguments made to change that, but as I recall that argument was made a long time ago and I don't think much has changed in regards to the game state.
As someone who thinks Foreign Wives is a great card that is balanced by the mere fact that it requires your opponent to trigger its ability, I agree that it would be disappointing to see it unable to effectively counter the strategies that it was designed against. But I could see why others who think that it is overkill might be happier with such a ruling. My guess is that it will just be clarified in the REG that protection works as it has since the Thaddeus ruling.
The thing is, we already have an ability that does what Protection from cards "should" do.
Immunity.
Do we really need two abilities to do the EXACT same thing?
-
The thing is, we already have an ability that does what Protection from cards "should" do.
Immunity.
Do we really need two abilities to do the EXACT same thing?
I've always wondered this myself...Protect and Immune do literally nothing differently. But we have these two terms that are targeted differently (a third if you count Ignore, which grants the condition but cannot have that component targeted...) while meaning the same thing.
What would the problem be if we ruled the words equivalent, honestly?
-
The thing is, we already have an ability that does what Protection from cards "should" do.
Immunity.
Do we really need two abilities to do the EXACT same thing?
I've always wondered this myself...Protect and Immune do literally nothing differently. But we have these two terms that are targeted differently (a third if you count Ignore, which grants the condition but cannot have that component targeted...) while meaning the same thing.
What would the problem be if we ruled the words equivalent, honestly?
Dominants.
-
Dominants.
Okay...you're going to have to expand on that. How do dominants affect a discussion about Protect and Immunity being the same at all. One word answers aren't very helpful in this case...
-
I think red is saying that, for example, you can grapes or angel Philistine Garrison but you cannot do that to FW. But functionally they do the same thing the only difference is that, in this case, FW has a larger range. Generally you can use dominants on immune characters as they are only immune to heroes. Prince of Persia is an exception though and would do the same thing if it was protected from dominants.
-
I think red is saying that, for example, you can grapes or angel Philistine Garrison but you cannot do that to FW. But functionally they do the same thing the only difference is that, in this case, FW has a larger range. Generally you can use dominants on immune characters as they are only immune to heroes. Prince of Persia is an exception though and would do the same thing if it was protected from dominants.
That doesn't actually cause any problem, because while they generally refer to different card types, they mean the exact same thing. If a card said it was immune to opponent's cards, it would still not be affected by their dominants.
That is the point I'm trying to get across, that it doesn't matter if you used one word or the other, they do precisely the same thing, regardless of what cards they are normally used with.
-
Unless protect gets changed (or possibly Immune) I would suggest that Immune no longer has to be a separate ability from Protect (and cards shouldn't say "Immune" anymore and instead use Protect exclusively.
-
I think red is saying that, for example, you can grapes or angel Philistine Garrison but you cannot do that to FW. But functionally they do the same thing the only difference is that, in this case, FW has a larger range. Generally you can use dominants on immune characters as they are only immune to heroes. Prince of Persia is an exception though and would do the same thing if it was protected from dominants.
Magicians' Snakes as well:
Your magicians and Egyptians are immune to all Heroes and Dominants while this card is in battle. Cannot be prevented.
So, you can be immune to dominants and protected from dominants. No real difference there.
-
Immune should be for abilities and numbers and protect should be for abilities but not numbers but I lost that argument a long time ago
-
I had a thought earlier today:
What if Immune was a subcategory of Protect?
Protect could be defined as an ability that stops other abilities from targeting the protected card.
Immunity would be an extended form of Protect (so all the same rules apply) that also protects from the numbers on cards.
-
I agree, either Protect and Immune should be the same ability or they should mean different things. The way that would least upset gameplay would be to set them equal, since it would only change the legal targets of cards that negate/are-regardless-of protect or immune right now.
The third component of this that I mentioned earlier is Ignore:
An ignore ability has four parts:
1. it grants the ignoring card immunity to all cards being ignored
2. it grants the ignored cards immunity to the ignoring card
3. characters not in battle and ignored cannot enter battle (i.e., you cannot choose to bring them into battle and they cannot be targeted by an ability that would bring them into battle)
4. characters already in battle and ignored are treated as though they were not in battle for purposes of determining battle outcome
However, this is not an immune ability it is an ignore ability, and cannot be targeted as the former. Perhaps that is how it should be, but honestly, it is kind of odd that we have 3 different abilities granting the exact same level of protection and none of them can be targeted as the others.