Cactus Game Design Message Boards

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?

Since they're both protected from each other, this is a stalemate situation.  Thad gets initiative.

Instaposted by Kirk

Isn't there a ruling that a card can't be protected from its own ability?  Or is that only in certain situations?

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.

Does protect also protect from the numbers, not just the SA?

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."

Quote from: DDiceRC on July 16, 2013, 10:33:36 PM

"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.

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.

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.

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.

Quote from: TheHobbit on July 17, 2013, 12:27:12 PM

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?

Quote from: Lamborghini_diablo on July 17, 2013, 12:44:56 PM

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.

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.