Author Topic: Theoretical Query to theoretically unbreak type 2 (Read 3798 times)

Alex_Olijar · « **on:** August 13, 2011, 07:13:45 PM »

Theoretical special ability number 1: "If you have 3 heros in play, protect your deck from opponent's cards"

Theoretical special ability number 2: "Place an evil character under opponent's deck".

If special ability 1 is active, is special ability 2 protected from?

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #1 on:** August 13, 2011, 08:43:44 PM »

I would guess not, since the first SA targets the deck, while the second SA targets an EC.

Alex_Olijar · « **Reply #2 on:** August 13, 2011, 08:48:34 PM »

I've been trying to come up with an answer to that return, since it's the biggest problem.

Isn't it true that Jerusalem Tower used to protect from cards returning to deck because of the opponent?

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #3 on:** August 13, 2011, 08:55:08 PM »

I guess that would depend on the SA. If it said "shuffle EC into deck," then the "shuffle" part would target the deck. If the SA said, "Return an EC to deck and shuffle deck", then the EC would still return to deck.

Alex_Olijar · « **Reply #4 on:** August 13, 2011, 08:56:26 PM »

Quote from: YourMathTeacher on August 13, 2011, 08:55:08 PM

I guess that would depend on the SA. If it said "shuffle EC into deck," then the "shuffle" part would target the deck. If the SA said, "Return an EC to deck and shuffle deck", then the EC would still return to deck.

JT allows shuffle.

Can you affect something that is protected by targeting something else?

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #5 on:** August 13, 2011, 09:02:42 PM »

Quote from: Alex_Olijar on August 13, 2011, 08:56:26 PM

JT allows shuffle.

Oops!

Quote from: Alex_Olijar on August 13, 2011, 08:56:26 PM

Can you affect something that is protected by targeting something else?

Probably not. If the card is protected, then that would override the loophole. For instance, if my Priests are protected, you can't use a card that targets OT heroes to get my Priest.

Alex_Olijar · « **Reply #6 on:** August 13, 2011, 09:06:20 PM »

I would think that if my deck is protected, even though I am targeting the character, you can't do it, because it indirectly targets my deck by adding to it.

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #7 on:** August 13, 2011, 09:10:02 PM »

So, if your Priests from the House of Eleazar are protected from discard abilities, and your opponent discards your Goshen which happens to be holding a Priest from the House of Eleazar, you're saying that the Priest would not be discarded because they are indirectly protected? Is that the scenario you are looking for?

Alex_Olijar · « **Reply #8 on:** August 13, 2011, 09:11:39 PM »

Quote from: YourMathTeacher on August 13, 2011, 09:10:02 PM

So, if your Priests from the House of Eleazar are protected from discard abilities, and your opponent discards your Goshen which happens to be holding a Priest from the House of Eleazar, you're saying that the Priest would not be discarded because they are indirectly protected? Is that the scenario you are looking for?

That's a great scenario. I would rule that the priest should not be discarded. Discard is discard, whether it's BTN or by ability.

Minister Polarius · « **Reply #9 on:** August 13, 2011, 09:24:38 PM »

This will take some debating.

Alex_Olijar · « **Reply #10 on:** August 13, 2011, 09:25:13 PM »

Quote from: Minister Polarius on August 13, 2011, 09:24:38 PM

This will take some debating.

To change the status quo or to get a ruling?

Minister Polarius · « **Reply #11 on:** August 13, 2011, 09:27:13 PM »

To get a ruling. As of now I would have no idea how to rule it.

Alex_Olijar · « **Reply #12 on:** August 13, 2011, 09:28:51 PM »

Quote from: Minister Polarius on August 13, 2011, 09:27:13 PM

To get a ruling. As of now I would have no idea how to rule it.

Maly told me that Protect protects from targeting, and so I can bottom deck a deck protected from effect. I was arguing indirect protection. We didn't get anywhere. If I'm right, I found at least 1 hard counter to Ahimelek.

Obviously, I'm probably not right. RDT says there was a ruling against this already concerning Grapes and a protected deck.

Josh · « **Reply #13 on:** August 13, 2011, 11:28:20 PM »

Quote from: Alex_Olijar on August 13, 2011, 09:06:20 PM

I would think that if my deck is protected, even though I am targeting the character, you can't do it, because it indirectly targets my deck by adding to it.

My thinking (just throwing this out there) is that the card being returned to deck is not a part of the deck until it is a part of the deck - i.e., when the return ability has already completed. The return ability does not target any of the existing cards in the deck, and by the time the returned card is a part of the deck and therefore protected, the ability has already completed.

Alex_Olijar · « **Reply #14 on:** August 13, 2011, 11:37:31 PM »

Well, that's sort of what the issue is about, I think.

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #15 on:** August 13, 2011, 11:45:29 PM »

Quote from: jmhartz on August 13, 2011, 11:28:20 PM

My thinking (just throwing this out there) is that the card being returned to deck is not a part of the deck until it is a part of the deck - i.e., when the return ability has already completed. The return ability does not target any of the existing cards in the deck, and by the time the returned card is a part of the deck and therefore protected, the ability has already completed.

So, in the other example, the Priest in Goshen can be discarded. The SA "Discard a fortress" did not target any of the heroes in the fortress. Therefore, the discard of the fortress completes (because it was not protected). The discard of the fortress causes the discard of the heroes in the fortress by game rule. This all completes before "Priests are protected from discard abilities" ever applies. In fact, Goshen's "Protect from harm or effect" would also not apply, since the heroes were never actually targetted.

Master KChief · « **Reply #16 on:** August 14, 2011, 02:05:37 AM »

in the theoretical case, i dont believe sa1 protects from sa2 since sa2 doesnt directly target the deck. therefore, still no hard counter to the best card in the new set.

MitchRobStew · « **Reply #17 on:** August 14, 2011, 02:53:06 PM »

Thaddeus protects Scribe from placing an O.T. enhancement under deck so Alex example should work in this case. Since Thadd can protect your deck from that then Alex's example should as well.

Thaddeus (Di)

Type: Hero Char. • Brigade: Purple • Ability: 8 / 8 • Class: None • Special Ability: Protect all cards in play, set-aside area, Artifact piles, hands, and decks from Evil Characters with toughness X or less. Cannot be interrupted. • Identifiers: NT Male Human, Disciple • Verse: Matthew 10:2-3 • Availability: Disciples booster packs ()

Scribe (Di)

Type: Evil Char. • Brigade: Black/Gray • Ability: 2 / 4 • Class: None • Special Ability: Search discard pile for an O.T. Enhancement and place it beneath deck. Negate ignore abilities. May band to a Pharisee or Sadducee. • Identifiers: Generic NT Male Human • Verse: Luke 20:46 • Availability: Disciples booster packs ()

Alex_Olijar · « **Reply #18 on:** August 15, 2011, 11:33:56 AM »

I'm curious to hear elder input now after Mitch's point about Thadd.

Gabe · « **Reply #19 on:** August 15, 2011, 11:39:29 AM »

Scribe's ability has 2 targets, the OT enhancement in the discard pile and the deck where it will bottomdeck the enhancement. If Thad is protecting the deck then it cannot be targeted by Scribe.

Alex_Olijar · « **Reply #20 on:** August 15, 2011, 11:40:44 AM »

Quote from: Gabe on August 15, 2011, 11:39:29 AM

Scribe's ability has 2 targets, the OT enhancement in the discard pile and the deck where it will bottomdeck the enhancement. If Thad is protecting the deck then it cannot be targeted by Scribe.

Then wouldn't anything that bottom decked something have two targets?

Gabe · « **Reply #21 on:** August 15, 2011, 11:51:18 AM »

Quote from: Alex_Olijar on August 15, 2011, 11:40:44 AM

Then wouldn't anything that bottom decked something have two targets?

I try to avoid answering vague, generalized questions like that and your OP. I already hear enough "but Gabe said..." without setting myself up by answering a potentially loaded question.

If there's something specific you're getting at then say it. If it's that important to you to keep in a secret then do your best to discern if it works from what has been said.

Alex_Olijar · « **Reply #22 on:** August 15, 2011, 11:53:10 AM »

I was just trying to ask a parallel question because I didn't want to give away a potential stop for the front runner for best type offense 2 days after the set released.

Does Simon the Zealot when activated stop my opponent's Ahimelek?

Gabe · « **Reply #23 on:** August 15, 2011, 12:40:55 PM »

It seems to me that Ahimelek the Hittite is targeting the Evil Character and the owner's hand, however, based on the Grapes of Wrath ruling with Simon the Zealot I'm probably wrong.

Alex_Olijar · « **Reply #24 on:** August 15, 2011, 12:54:24 PM »

Quote from: Gabe on August 15, 2011, 12:40:55 PM

It seems to me that Ahimelek the Hittite is targeting the Evil Character and the owner's hand, however, based on the Grapes of Wrath ruling with Simon the Zealot I'm probably wrong.

That's what I am seeing. Based in Grapes/Zealot, it shouldn't, but based on Thadd/Scribe, it should.

Any other opininons?

News:

Author Topic: Theoretical Query to theoretically unbreak type 2 (Read 3798 times)