Cactus Game Design Message Boards

Quote from: sk on July 26, 2012, 10:36:57 PM

In the steps before, step 2a shouldn't allow Uzzah to target the souls. Thus, when 2c occurs, Uzzah's ongoing ability reactivates, but can't choose a new target, so it does nothing.

The thing is that 2a, b, and c all really happen at the same time.  So WHILE Uzzah is trying to do his SA the Tower kicks in and negates Abigail.  Since this happens DURING Uzzah's SA, Uzzah is still able to target the LSs.

Again, I would like to point out that Protection is very different from targeting by an instant ability.  It is continuous and its 'targeting' (for lack of a better term) is updated continuously.  There is no "it cannot target anymore" in this case, like in the case of an instant ability (discard, capture, etc.).

In the same way that Miraculous Handkerchiefs protects heroes in territory that were placed there after it was activated, Covenant with Phineas protects all Priests of the House of Eleazor regardless of if they hit play after it was activated, Altar of Ahaz protects Lost Souls from rescue by Dominants even if they enter play after it is activated (such as off a draw ability or HT), and so on and so on.

That is the nature of protect.  It is an ongoing ability that is constantly updating its effects.  Once Abigail is negated, Uzzah's SA protects all LS from rescue.  Otherwise, the way that Protect works changes completely in this game.

Although you are correct that ongoing abilities work differently than instant abilities, it sounds like you may be a bit confused about what happens if they are negated at the time when they begin.

If Moses makes a rescue and is blocked by Uzzah, then Uzzah's protection never starts.  Even if later in the battle Moses is negated, Uzzah's special ability will NOT start working.

The reason why Uzzah's ability works in this specific case we are discussing in this thread is because Abigail (who would have stopped Uzzah's ability) is negated by Tower DURING Uzzah's special ability.

Going to point out here, that Abigail does nothing to Uzzah's ability here, it protects the souls.  Moses directly affects uzzah's ability by negation, so there is a difference in the two situations.

OK, I'm glad we're all on the same page now, then

OK, I'm glad we're all on the same page now, then

I think while we both reach the same ending, the path there is not the same at all, and that is actually important to point out.  You say:

The reason why Uzzah's ability works in this specific case we are discussing in this thread is because Abigail (who would have stopped Uzzah's ability) is negated by Tower DURING Uzzah's special ability.

First, that goes against your previous ruling on Iron Pan and Banquet.  In this post, you stated that while Iron Pan turns off during the ability, it cannot insert between two parts of the same ability.  You ruled that Banquet is still negated because Iron Pan cannot be turned off during the ability.  While I don't agree with that ruling in respect to the Ruling on Triggers and Duration, that is what we'd been told to go off of.  If you're changing that ruling, that'd be welcomed (especially since it says of Iron Pan in that update "Ability to insert during SAs...Yes, it updates constantly"), but we'd need to see that officially.

Second, protection is part of Category 4 (no trigger, continuously ongoing, updates constantly).  Therefore, if Abigail were negated later in battle (assume a band to Uzzah), the protection of Uzzah, being ongoing and updating constantly, would protect all LS from rescue.  That is the nature of protection, and I have pointed out many examples to support my case.  If you would like more, let me know.

The ruling on triggers and duration is an official ruling. You need to stop getting so hung up on Iron Pan.

I'm trying to get clarification.  He says in this thread that Iron Pan can insert in between abilities on a card and that is why he is ruling this case as he is.  However, he said the exact opposite in the thread I linked to.  And that thread does not jive with the overall ruling.

In addition, all of it has nothing to do with this situation, which is what I'm trying to show, and it matters greatly to similar rulings (not involving Tower, but other negation).

I'm not hung up on anything: This needs clarified.

No, it doesn't. He made an incorrect ruling (or a ruling that predated the definition) in the past. That doesn't need clarification, we have a definitive top-down definition for how this all works that directly cites the exact example you're talking about. We could have twenty Elders come on here and say that Iron Pan doesn't activate in between abilities and they'd still be wrong unless they changed the definition.

@YMT, nice.

He was just the one presenting the ruling the PTB had come up with by consensus regarding updating conditions. The fact that he immediately misinterpreted it and ruled incorrectly has no bearing. Top-down rules cannot be stricken down by a single elder, and he has obviously corrected his error since. Drop it.

I'm not attacking you personally, I'm defending the top-down rules system. Elder rulings are important, but there seems to be a pervasive attitude of "yeah, it directly contradicts the ruling, but an elder said so!" I am not against you getting clarification per se, but the very fact that you're asking for it in this situation means you either don't understand or don't trust the top-down rulings system. Trust me, you do not want to go back to the days of bottom-up.

As to whether ongoing effects continue to ping if the source of the ability is no longer in play, I would also like to hear that. I know that ongoing continuously activates, but at the same time, no other card is able to activate from the grave that I know of. It's a question of whether to update "ongoing abilities" to specify that they only continue to target while in play, or to explicitly state that they continue to ping even if removed from play if not negated. I'm fine either way, but you're right that the rules don't clearly tell us which way it is currently.

So much for FbtN not being related to the question

NB4 "Abigail doesn't Negate Uzzah."

- Thaddeus -

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.

Sent Two by Two
Type: Hero Enh. • Brigade: Purple • Ability: 2 / 2 • Class: None • Special Ability: Negate special abilities on demons. Disciples are immune to demons. If a lone disciple is in battle, band a disciple into battle. Cannot be negated.

Philip
Type: Hero Char. • Brigade: Purple • Ability: 9 / 7 • Class: None • Special Ability: You may search deck for Bartholomew. May band to Bartholomew. Immune to Greek Evil Characters. Cannot be negated.

Thaddeus's protection has always been ruled to protect all cards in his target areas from EC of appropriate toughness.  While I could give many examples of cards entering one of those areas, I'll use Sent Two By Two.  If Thaddeus needs numbers and uses it to band to Phillip, who then searches out Bartholomew, he would still be protected if Protection updates.  Otherwise, he is no longer a card in deck (where he was originally when the protection initially triggered), and would not be protected if there is no updating of protection; I have never seen it ruled in this manner.

Is Bartholomew protected from EC of appropriate toughness when he hits play?

- Protect Forts -

This will be more of a general discussion.  The question is: When do fortresses update?  They have no activation period except for when they hit play.  Would this mean that a fortress with a protect ability only protects those characters it could target when it hit play?  Of course this would not be a position held by anyone I know, but there is no other rule for fortresses on when they activate.  If protection does not update continuously, then when do these fortresses protect the characters targeted?

Are characters protected by Protect Forts protected continuously, regardless of when they hit play?

- Conclusion -

As the above examples show, there are many different ways that Protection is introduced to a game, and they all have different moments of 'activation' in which they would target if Protection does not update continuously.  Nowhere is this clearer than with Protect Forts, which would not work at all as intended (or ruled) if Protection did not update continuously.  It would completely change rulings, and complicate the game, to change the nature of protection.  We would need to start tracking the moment each card hits play (due to protect artifacts like Miraculous Handkerchiefs, Altar of Ahaz, Covenant of Phineas, etc.) and it would also complicate the Battle Phase with cards like Thaddeus protecting some cards, not protecting others, and with no clear reason why.

In addition, if we go by the Official Ruling on Triggers, Conditions, and Duration, then Protection falls into the 4th category - the same as Iron Pan.  It has no trigger, is ongoing, is continuously updated, and can insert itself between abilities.

Therefore, Protection should be able to update its targets continuously, ongoing as long as the ability continues and is not negated.

In this case, that means that once Abigail's protection is negated, the protection of Uzzah is able to protect the LS.

OK, that's a good case for one side.  Any opposing thoughts?