Cactus Game Design Message Boards
Redemption® Collectible Trading Card Game HQ => Official Rules & Errata => Ruling Questions => Topic started by: Gabe on July 15, 2010, 10:18:46 AM
-
Habakkuk (TeP) makes a rescue attempt. He's blocked by Philistine Garrison. The rescuer plays ANB. What happens to Garrison?
a) He's discarded by Habakkuk's SA.
b) He's shuffled by ANB.
c) He remains in play because he's immune to all the above.
Habakkuk
Type: Hero Char. • Brigade: Green • Ability: 6 / 3 • Class: None • Special Ability: Negate all protect abilities on evil cards. After this battle, you may discard a warrior class Evil Character. Cannot be negated. • Attributes: Prophet • Identifiers: OT Male Human, Prophet • Verse: Habakkuk 3:1-2
Philistine Garrison
Type: Evil Char. • Brigade: Black • Ability: 12 / 8 • Class: • Special Ability: Immune to lone Heroes. • Attributes: Generic, Philistine, Fought Earthly Battle • Identifiers: Generic OT Male Human, Philistia, Fought Earthly Battle • Verse: I Samuel 14:12
A New Beginning - If making a rescue attempt, remove this card from the game to shuffle all cards in play, set aside areas, and hands into decks. End the battle. All players draw 8. End the turn. Begin a new turn.
-
Are immune abilities "protect abilities"? If not, I would say (c). If so, I would say (b) since Habakkuk negates his immunity and he is then in the draw pile before he can be chosen to be discarded... But I'm no ruling authority. ;)
-
This depends upon whether imminity is defined as a protect ability. I have hear that it is not and therefore habakkuk does not negate it so Garrison would be immune to ANB and the answer woudl be C.
Question now becomes can Habakkuk still d/c him after that battle or would Garrison be immune to his ability to d/c a warrior class EC.
-
I would say (C)
Further Question:
In Type 2, would Garrison recieve a counter.
-
I would say (C)
Further Question:
In Type 2, would Garrison recieve a counter.
yessir. Garrison survives, no soul was rescued...sounds like a successful block to me!
-
My question is regarding Hab's "After this battle...". How is Phil Garr's immunity in effect AFTER the battle? Wouldn't they be discarded?
-
At MW Regional we played that Garrison was immune, stayed in play and got a counter for a successful block. From what I understand I think that's right. Now I'm just curious if there's anything we missed or if it was played correctly.
-
My question is regarding Hab's "After this battle...". How is Phil Garr's immunity in effect AFTER the battle? Wouldn't they be discarded?
But Garrison was immune to the ability in battle, so even though it is a delayed effect, the immunity already means the SA cannot directly affect Garrison.
-
That just seems odd, especially since these two cards came out in the same set. It seemed to me that the designers intended Garrison's Immunity to not protect them from this because they were not in battle anymore. I had always been taught that character abilities are only active during battle, unless stated otherwise on the card. I see Habbakuk as one of those "otherwise" cards, because his specifically says AFTER the battle. But I'm probably wrong. On a side note, any card saying something like "After the battle", is confusing for this very reason and un-needed, in my opinion.
-
That just seems odd, especially since these two cards came out in the same set. It seemed to me that the designers intended Garrison's Immunity to not protect them from this because they were not in battle anymore.
I would think Habbakuk and Jeremiah were specifically designed to tear apart the civilizations that have protection forts, which are primarily warrior-class.
-
There are two issues I see here:
First, what is the order of things happening when the battle ends? If it's as follows:
1. Ongoing special abilities deactivate
2. Used enhancements are discarded
3. Characters return to territory/are discarded as appropriate
4. Any special abilities triggered by the end of battle occur
Then I would say that Habbakuk CAN kill Garrison, since Garrison's immunity is deactivated before triggered SAs. However, if #4 actually comes first, then Habbakuk can't kill Garrison, since his immunity is still active when Habbakuk is triggered. I'm not completely sure which is correct, as I currently can't access the REG (all I get is a white screen with the words ByLenis in the top. Anyone else having that issue? I have gotten that on two different computers using two different browsers). However, I would lean toward the first option (the 1-4 I listed) which would lead me to believe that Garrison would be discarded.
The second issue is what happens first, the rest of ANB after it says the battle ends, or everything else triggered by the battle ending. That is, does it go like this: Remove, shuffle, end battle, perform 1-4, draw 8, end turn, begin new turn? Or is it: Remove, shuffle, end battle, draw 8, end turn, begin new turn, perform 1-4? While I don't usually favor SA's being split up as in the first example, ANB is a strange card that spans multiple phases that I think it might warrant a split up SA as stated previously. One reason in particular that I'd say it's split up is this: say I use a different hero and do the same thing against Garrison. Garrison goes back to territory previous to the next turn right? Otherwise, he's just hanging out in battle, which I would find odd.
If it isn't split up, I would have a harder time convincing myself that Habbakuk's SA is still triggered in the next turn, and would think it might "fizzle" as they say, but I suppose it's not completely farfetched. If it did carry over however, I would definitely say that PG would be discarded, because his SA is most certainly not active any longer.
So in conclusion, my vote is for A. I think that my analysis makes the most sense for what seems to happen at the end of any battle, but also ANB vs. immunity battles especially.
-
hab's ability specifically states 'after this battle'. garrisons immunity is only active in battle. hab would discard garrison.
the real question is if hab's 'after this battle' ability is a pending ability, therefore not taking effect when shuffled in by anb.
-
Immune is immune and protect is protect. They have similar functions and are on the same point in the rock-paper-scissors triangle, but don't make it harder on yourself by trying to morph "protect ability" into "an ability that kind has a protect-like functiony thing".
Therefore, I say C.
-
Immune is immune and protect is protect. They have similar functions and are on the same point in the rock-paper-scissors triangle, but don't make it harder on yourself by trying to morph "protect ability" into "an ability that kind has a protect-like functiony thing".
Therefore, I say C.
Not sure who you're addressing. I don't think anyone is arguing that Habbakuk negates Garrison. Just that Garrison's immunity is over by the time Hab's trigger occurs.
-
I just don't see how an EC who is immune to a hero can be affected by the hero's SA. That's what doesn't sit right with me.
Somewhat related question: Can Ark of the Covenant discard an EC used in battle if there is a protection fort?
-
Not sure who you're addressing. I don't think anyone is arguing that Habbakuk negates Garrison.
Are immune abilities "protect abilities"?
This depends upon whether imminity is defined as a protect ability.
Additionally, when doing battle resolution, the triggered special abilities have to be first, because the treatment of all other cards are done by game rule, and therefore you first have to know which cards are otherwise affected before you know which ones are left over to treat as normal.
-
Additionally, when doing battle resolution, the triggered special abilities have to be first, because the treatment of all other cards are done by game rule, and therefore you first have to know which cards are otherwise affected before you know which ones are left over to treat as normal.
That was really confusing, but ironically I agree.
At least I think so ..... ;)
-
Raider's Camp is the best example. Under normal gameplay, a successful rescue means you surrender a Lost Soul. But the special ability "insteads" the rescue to releasing the captured Heroes.
Obviously you must resolve the "release Heroes" ability before looking at the game rule to surrender the Lost Soul. If RC is occupied, you release. If RC is empty, you proceed by game rule (give up the point).
-
Additionally, when doing battle resolution, the triggered special abilities have to be first, because the treatment of all other cards are done by game rule, and therefore you first have to know which cards are otherwise affected before you know which ones are left over to treat as normal.
That does make sense, however, how does Chariot of Fire return Heroes who just lost in battle to the draw pile? That's how I've always seen it played at least, though I guess I might be wrong.
-
That does make sense, however, how does Chariot of Fire return Heroes who just lost in battle to the draw pile? That's how I've always seen it played at least, though I guess I might be wrong.
FWIW, I have never thought Chariot of Fire should do that. I only rule it that way because I have been told that's the way everyone does it.
-
"Following your rescue attempt" is interpreted to mean during your discard phase, when the Battle Phase is over.
I won't say at this time that "after this battle" should also mean that it waits until Battle Phase moves to Discard Phase, but neither will I dismiss the possibility.
-
Immune is immune and protect is protect. They have similar functions and are on the same point in the rock-paper-scissors triangle, but don't make it harder on yourself by trying to morph "protect ability" into "an ability that kind has a protect-like functiony thing".
Therefore, I say C.
Even though this isn't really the point of debate right now, I have a few things that contradict this statement. First would be from the REG on the How to Play section for Immunity.
Immunity protects a character from being harmed, affected, or removed from battle.
Also under the clarifications section...
“Immune to”, “cannot be”, “protected from,” and “may not be” all mean the same thing when applied to characters.
These sections from the REG make immune seem like it could be classified as a protect ability.
Also from Bryon under the rule clarifications thread on here which seems to leave little room for not considering it a protect ability...
RULEBOOK CLARIFICATIONS:
All of the following phrases are PROTECT abilities:
Protect...
Is protected from ...
Is prevented from being ...
Cannot be ...
May not be ...
May only be ... by
Must be ... by
Immune to ...
Ignores ...
Notice that each of the abilities above does not prevent a special ability. They only limit the special ability to OTHER TARGETS.
So is it really not considered a protect? Under this thought Philistine Garrison's immunity (also classified as a protect under these instances) would be negated by Habbakuk
-
I think it's one of those letter of the word rulings...it has to say "protect" on the evil card to be negated. Same as "places" cannot be used for high places. It has to say "place". Protect is the intention of immunity, but verbatim is not the same thing.
-
That would make sense. It doesn't matter to me either way I'm just trying to understand how some things in the game work still since I'm pretty new to Redemption. Immune just got registered as a protect in my head as I was reading about it in the REG and looking through the forums.
-
I won't say at this time that "after this battle" should also mean that it waits until Battle Phase moves to Discard Phase, but neither will I dismiss the possibility.
I always thought SAs last until the end of the phase. If you wait until Discard Phase, then Habbakuk's SA will no longer be active. If SAs must stay active (unless negated) until the end of phase, Garrison's immunity is still active until the Discard Phase. If not, then I do not see how any 'after battle' ability on a character or enhancement would ever work.
-
I think it's one of those letter of the word rulings...it has to say "protect" on the evil card to be negated. Same as "places" cannot be used for high places. It has to say "place". Protect is the intention of immunity, but verbatim is not the same thing.
I disagree. The quote from Bryon is quite important, although four years old. Habbakuk says "Negate protect abilities" and that list is a list of "protect abilities."
-
In a nutshell:
- Ignore guards characters from other characters (and the Enhancements played on them)
- Immune guards characters from certain types of characters (brigade colors, humans, lone Heroes, New Testament Evil Characters, etc) (and the Enhancements played on them)
- Protect gaurds cards from the effects of other cards.
When the REG equates "immune to" with a protect function, it is still looking at the effects of the cards, e.g. the old Helmet of Salvation says "Hero is immune to Confusion", meaning "Protect Hero from the effect of Confusion".
There is a difference between immune and protect, both in their definition and the type of defense they offer against other cards. Not every ignore/immune/protect is a "protect ability". Immune is immune, ignore is ignore and protect is protect, just like Sites are Sites and Forts are Forts.
-
I understand the difference, but that 2006 quote from Bryon seems to say otherwise. Just like "take a hero prisoner" is a "capture ability," even though it does not actually say "capture." Should we just disregard that old quote as a clarification, rather than a list of "protect abilities" like it says?
-
My thinking was more in line with what you say Schaef, and that makes sense to me. The stickied topic I quoted earlier seem to say otherwise as YourMathTeacher said though and that is what confused me. Even though it is a 4 year old topic it is still stickied and so it seemed like I could take most of what I read as still accurate. But if that is how it should be played then I have no more need to argue the point; I just wanted some clarification there. It would be nice if we could have rule clarifications and such updated every year, or a new thread to replace the old every year to make sure everything is clear and up to date for us new players :p
Anyways, sorry for my short distraction from the original question. Continue, hehe.
-
I understand the difference, but that 2006 quote from Bryon seems to say otherwise.
You need to provide the context for that list. Look at the How to Play for protect:
Protect allows cards to be unaffected by specified special abilities
A lone hero is not a special ability, so "immune to lone Heroes" is not a protect ability. Additionally, if immune and protect were the same thing, they would not have completely different sections in the REG.
-
Again, I do not disagree with you. I just think the list is misleading for hosts. I'm not even sure where he found a list that old. That was before my daughter was born! :o
-
I understand the difference, but that 2006 quote from Bryon seems to say otherwise.
You need to provide the context for that list. Look at the How to Play for protect:
Protect allows cards to be unaffected by specified special abilities
A lone hero is not a special ability, so "immune to lone Heroes" is not a protect ability. Additionally, if immune and protect were the same thing, they would not have completely different sections in the REG.
There it is. I was trying to remember how that list was misleading. so Immune to discard = protected from discard, but immune to lone heroes =/= protected from lone heroes (in the sense that it's a protect ability).
-
Again, I do not disagree with you. I just think the list is misleading for hosts. I'm not even sure where he found a list that old. That was before my daughter was born! :o
I found it under the "Official Errata" section. It's the only other thread in there aside from the Errata thread so it was hard not to miss when I was just reading through things trying to gain a better understanding of the game.
What you said makes complete sense and I agree with it. I was just confused because that list which mentions "is immune to" is also shown in the REG under clarifications in the protect section, and also I was confused because of the use of the word protect in the section defining immune (which was shown in my earlier post). Again thank you for the clarification on that though.
-
When Habakkuk was released I asked if he negates 'immune' abilities. The answer was a clear - "no". For more on that topic look here (http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/index.php?topic=17218.0).
-
I found it under the "Official Errata" section. It's the only other thread in there aside from the Errata thread so it was hard not to miss when I was just reading through things trying to gain a better understanding of the game.
That's what I was afraid of, which was why I think an update needs to be made. I would have also been confused by that quote.
-
There's a lot of questions in this scenario. These are my thoughts on them:
1 - Does Hab negate Garrison's immunity?
a) no because Garrison's SA doesn't have the word "protect"
b) no because immunity to characters isn't a "protect ability"
c) yes because immunity is a kind of protection
I like option c). Immunity seems like protection and therefore seems like it should be negated. What is the purpose of having Protection and Immunity being 2 different sections in the REG anyway? Why isn't immunity simply a subcategory of protection? And as for the specific word "protect", don't the cards that require specific words on cards actually have the word in quotes, or say "cards with the word ..."?
2 - Does Hab discard Garrison after the battle if the immunity is not negated?
a) no because Garrison's immunity protects him from being targeted when Hab's SA activates
b) no because the discard happens before the phase is totally over so the immunity is still active
c) yes because the targeting doesn't happen until after battle when the protection is over
I like option b). It seems like triggered effects can pick their target AFTER the trigger happens. However, discarding the characters that lose in a battle is "battle resolution" and is therefore still during the "Battle Phase". If Garrison's immunity is NOT negated, then it would still be active throughout that phase and would protect him from discard. As an aside, "after this battle" should not mean in the Discard Phase, because there could be more than 1 battle in a Battle Phase.
3 - Does ANB shuffle Garrison after the battle if the immunity is not negated?
a) no because Garrison's immunity protects him from being targeted by ANB when it activates
b) no because Garrison's immunity still protects him when he returns to territory after Hab is shuffled
c) yes because after Hab is shuffled and Garrison returns to territory, he isn't protected anymore
Again, my thinking is similar to question #2. Even if Garrison returns to territory (due to Hab being shuffled away) before ANB starts shuffling away stuff in the territories, I still think his immunity is active until the end of the Battle Phase if it were never negated.
4 - How does Chariot of Fire work?
a) only heroes in the discard pile before the end of the battle are shuffled back into draw pile
b) all heroes including those who die at the end of the battle are shuffled back into draw pile
I don't think that "Following your rescue attempt" would have to mean "During you Upkeep Phase". I'm actually thinking that it should not. When someone plays Ambush the City, then their rescue attempt finishes in the middle of their Battle Phase, and they still have an entire other battle challenge to finish. However, I do think that the trigger would go off at the end of Battle Resolution, and therefore I agree with the status quo ruling of b).
-
What is the purpose of having Protection and Immunity being 2 different sections in the REG anyway? Why isn't immunity simply a subcategory of protection?
As stated earlier:
- Immune guards characters from certain types of characters (brigade colors, humans, lone Heroes, New Testament Evil Characters, etc) (and the Enhancements played on them)
- Protect gaurds cards from the effects of other cards.
You are immune to characters and protected from effects. You cannot be protected from King David and you cannot be immune to Stan's Seat. They function differently, and always have.
As an aside, "after this battle" should not mean in the Discard Phase, because there could be more than 1 battle in a Battle Phase.
I would be inclined to agree with this.
-
You are immune to characters and protected from effects. You cannot be protected from King David and you cannot be immune to Stan's Seat. They function differently, and always have.
so what about these cards then?
Shield of Faith (Kings)
Type: Hero Enh. • Brigade: Multicolor • Ability: 3 / 4 • Class: None • Special Ability: Hero is immune to all evil enhancements depicting weapons. • Identifiers: NT, Depicts a Weapon • Verse: Ephesians 6:16 • Availability: Kings booster packs (Ultra Rare)
Belt of Truth (Warriors)
Type: Hero Enh. • Brigade: Multicolor • Ability: 3 / 4 • Class: None • Special Ability: Hero is immune to Lies. • Identifiers: None • Verse: Ephesians 6:14 • Availability: Warriors booster packs (Ultra Rare)
Helmet of Salvation (Warriors)
Type: Hero Enh. • Brigade: Multicolor • Ability: 3 / 4 • Class: None • Special Ability: Hero is immune to Confusion. • Identifiers: None • Verse: Ephesians 6:17-18 • Availability: Warriors booster packs (Ultra Rare)
-
What is the purpose of having Protection and Immunity being 2 different sections in the REG anyway? Why isn't immunity simply a subcategory of protection?
As stated earlier:
- Immune guards characters from certain types of characters (brigade colors, humans, lone Heroes, New Testament Evil Characters, etc) (and the Enhancements played on them)
- Protect gaurds cards from the effects of other cards.
You are immune to characters and protected from effects. You cannot be protected from King David and you cannot be immune to Stan's Seat. They function differently, and always have.
As an aside, "after this battle" should not mean in the Discard Phase, because there could be more than 1 battle in a Battle Phase.
I would be inclined to agree with this.
I thought Protection of Angels would stop the protected characters from being beaten by the numbers.
Interrupt the battle and protect all Heroes in play and set-aside areas from evil cards until end of turn.
-
so what about these cards then?
Shield of Faith (Kings)...Special Ability: Hero is immune to all evil enhancements depicting weapons.
Belt of Truth (Warriors)...Special Ability: Hero is immune to Lies.
Helmet of Salvation (Warriors)...Special Ability: Hero is immune to Confusion
From the rules:
RULEBOOK CLARIFICATIONS:
All of the following phrases are PROTECT abilities:
...Immune to ...
My previous explanation in this thread:
When the REG equates "immune to" with a protect function, it is still looking at the effects of the cards, e.g. the old Helmet of Salvation says "Hero is immune to Confusion", meaning "Protect Hero from the effect of Confusion".
-
You are immune to characters and protected from effects.
This just seems like an arbitrary distinction that is even contradicted by several cards (as pointed out by MKC). It seems just as easy to explain that "immunity" is a limited subdivision of protection that protects characters from stuff (other characters, enhs, SAs, and raw # abilities). But that there are other types of protection beyond immunity (ie. protecting LSs from rescue, protecting decks from discard, etc.)
I'm just not sure that we really need to have this arbitrary distinction between "immune" and "protect". It seems intuitive to people that if you block with someone who is "immune" that they are "protected" from stuff. So if we're trying to simplify the new REG by combining certain sections (ie. Poison & Disease), then this might be another pairing that we could combine.
-
This just seems like an arbitrary distinction that is even contradicted by several cards (as pointed out by MKC).
Cards that in almost every case are almost a decade old and far predate our efforts to clean up the language. I don't think the clean structure of the abilities should be punished for the fact that we try to keep the old cards intact with Play As language.
I'm just not sure that we really need to have this arbitrary distinction between "immune" and "protect".
Let's assume your point, then, that the distinction between the two is arbitrary.
I rescue with a Hero that is protected from removal. You block with Nadab and Abihu together. Consider the scenarios if you do and do not use Abihu's ability.
Now instead, I rescue with a Hero that is immune to gray brigade. You block with the same combo. Do the scenarios play out the same way? If not, then the distinction is real and not arbitrary.
-
Let's assume your point, then, that the distinction between the two is arbitrary.
I rescue with a Hero that is protected from removal. You block with Nadab and Abihu together. Consider the scenarios if you do and do not use Abihu's ability.
Now instead, I rescue with a Hero that is immune to gray brigade. You block with the same combo. Do the scenarios play out the same way? If not, then the distinction is real and not arbitrary.
Actually I think that the average person playing those cards would do the same thing both times. The first time, they would say that their hero was safe because they were protected from removal. The second time they would say that they were safe because they were protected from grey brigade, and the guys trying to remove the hero were grey. I don't actually see a problem here.
-
Right, that scenario is the same. However, Schaef said to apply both using and not using the remove ability - In that case two different things happen - In the first if the ability is not used, Nadab and Abihu can play say - Deluge of Rain and kill the hero. In the second if Deluge is played then the hero is not killed.
-
But Schaef is saying what if you DON'T use Abihu's ability. In the first case, you are probably losing (unless you are attacking with a big hero). In the second case, it is probably a stalemate.
FWIW, I agree you make some sense in your post about immune and ignore being subsets of protect, but I just have a bad feeling it would be a bigger change than you might realize.
-
Actually I think that the average person playing those cards would do the same thing both times.
Well, then, they would be playing the game completely wrong, because a protected Hero I can still play other cards against, and for example capture him with Snare. With an immune Hero, NOTHING played on those characters would work against that Hero, even if they were able to use Enhancements of another color.
This is the distinction I think you fail to realize: protect narrowly focuses on the effects of the specific cards, but they can protect any type of card from any type of card. Immune has broader implications as to what cannot affect the immune character, but most of that benefit comes in the Field of Battle, wherein immunity also plays a role in determining the state of the battle.
Protect was brought into use in this specific way for a specific reason: immunity as it works does not provide a good framework for what we want protect to do. Their effects are similar in many ways but their function and targets are different.
-
Schaef's example isn't really a reason not to put them together, because you aren't even talking about the same thing
In case 1 the hero is protected from REMOVAL whereas in case 2 they are immune to GREY BRIGADE. To have a proper example that shows they are different they have to be protected/immune to the same thing
So if a hero is protected from Gray brigade or immune to gray brigade, or if a hero is protected from removal or immune to removal. It appears to me that the only difference between immunity is that one is about abilities and one is about characters
If I am right the only difference is what it targets, they seem to work the same way, assuming they had the same target, so it would be very easy to merge them if we wanted to and it might actually simplify things a bit, like I'm not sure about Protection of Angels, but it seems to me that when I activate that my heroes should be protected from numbers as well (I am fairly certain it has been ruled that they are not, and I understand the reasoning, but it doesn't seem right that I can be protected from evil cards but still be discarded by a large enough evil character)
-
In case 1 the hero is protected from REMOVAL whereas in case 2 they are immune to GREY BRIGADE.
I chose two realistic examples that I am certain you could find on an existing card. Either way, protection from gray brigade Evil Characters would not protect you from their Enhancements, but immunity to gray ECs would. Moreover, protection from gray brigade would not protect you from pale green Enhancements played on them, but immunity to gray brigade would.
It appears to me that the only difference between immunity is that one is about abilities and one is about characters
I did not spend considerable effort outlining numerous differences only to have it all tossed out the window for "oh, they just target different things"
-
Schaef's example isn't really a reason not to put them together, because you aren't even talking about the same thing
In case 1 the hero is protected from REMOVAL whereas in case 2 they are immune to GREY BRIGADE. To have a proper example that shows they are different they have to be protected/immune to the same thing
Agreed, I thought you were only asking about them trying to remove the hero. Of course if the hero was only protected from removal, then the grey ECs could still capture him or whatever, but that's not the point. What I'm saying is that immunity is one kind of protection (in this case from whatever SAs the grey ECs and their EEs try to do). Protection from removal is another type of protection (in this case just from removal SAs). But that still proves nothing about why they can't both be seen as Protection.
-
After rereading Schaef's definitions of ignore an immune I do see more of a difference.
A card that says "Protect X from Y Characters" would not protect them from the enhancements played on them, (In fact it would be almost useless because all it really protects from is character abilities)
Whereas "X is immune to Y characters" would "protect" a character from all enhancements played on them.
I'm sorry for not really reading the definitions you said earlier, I was just talking about your example and I wasn't throwing it away.
However I still find it strange that Protection of Angels doesn't protect against numbers.
-
Agreed, I thought you were only asking about them trying to remove the hero.
I find this strange, as I made it a point in each of the two examples to spell that out and pluralize "scenarios".
But that still proves nothing about why they can't both be seen as Protection.
You don't see why two things which you acknowledge are different can't be treated like they are the same?
Prevent, interrupt and negate are all types of a class of special ability that cancels out the effects of cards. But they function differently, therefore I will not attempt to equate interrupt with negate. Similarly, ignore, immune and protect are all types of a class of special ability that limits targets. But they function differently, therefore I will not attempt to equate immune with protect.
-
Immunity and Protects are completely different and there's no way you'd be able to combine them. :2cents: Now for why. :P
"X is Immune to Y." So when you're playing, if I play X and target Y, nothing happens because the Immunity stops it.
Say the same thing is Protected. "X is Protected from Y." Now I play X. This time it's different because I can't even target Y. Protect doesn't stop the ability of Y from harming X, it stops Y from targeting X altogether. Does that make more sense?
This is why Cannot be Negated can be used on a Immune card (because Y still targets X but the immunity can't stop it) but doesn't work on Protected cards (because Y can't target X at all).
This is how I learned it, but I'm not even sure where anymore. I've been looking for REG quotes to back but so far no luck. If I'm just crazy, let me know. :P
*EDIT*
You cannot target something that is protected (e.g., a Hero in Goshen, etc).
You cannot target something that is immune. Therefore, if Shoes of Peace is played on a Hero that is blocked by Prince of this World, then the opponent cannot target the immune character. If another valid target exists then it must be targeted instead; if there is no valid target, Shoes of Peace does nothing.
This seems to kill what I just said except it doesn't make any sense with how we've been playing.... How can a CBN work against an immune but now protect if neither can be targeted?
I'm kind of inclined to think the Quote from the immune default condition is just way WAY old tho because of the card examples given. They say Shoes of Peace do nothing because it can't target PotW even though SoP should really target the player, not PotW at all. :P
-
I find this strange, as I made it a point in each of the two examples to spell that out and pluralize "scenarios".
What can I say, it's late at night, I missed it. I'm sorry.
You don't see why two things which you acknowledge are different can't be treated like they are the same?
Prevent, interrupt and negate are all types of a class of special ability that cancels out the effects of cards. But they function differently, therefore I will not attempt to equate interrupt with negate. Similarly, ignore, immune and protect are all types of a class of special ability that limits targets. But they function differently, therefore I will not attempt to equate immune with protect.
First of all Prevent, Interrupt, and Negate do all do the same thing. They all cancel special abilities. Prevent is a subset of canceling that cancels SAs before they are played. Negate is a subset of canceling that cancels SAs before and after they are played. Interrupt is a subset of canceling that temporarily cancels a SA so that you can do something else.
Similarly, immunity is a subset of protection that protects characters from special abilities of certain characters and/or enhancements. So of course there are differences between that and other types of protects, but the overall function is the same. They stop something from being affected by something else.
-
First of all Prevent, Interrupt, and Negate do all do the same thing.
No, they do not. A card that says "prevent the last Enhancement" does not do the same thing as "negate the last Enhancement". They do SIMILAR things but they have DIFFERENT FUNCTIONS.
Prevent is a subset of canceling that cancels SAs before they are played.
Similarly, immunity is a subset of protection
So why do you call immune - a special ability - a subset of protect - another special ability, but you call prevent a subset of this-general-description-of-the-kind-of-things-the-different-cards-do-similarly?
-
I think we're just getting into semantics at this point, and it's late.
The main point as far as this thread is concerned is figuring out what happens to Garrison if Habbakuk plays ANB on him. And I think we all agree that (based on the ruling that Hab does NOT cancel Garrison's immunity), Garrison does NOT get shuffled, and does NOT get discarded. Is that right?
-
I'd agree that Immune and Protect are in the same vein, like Negate, Interrupt and Protect are. But I'd say that, as Interrupt, Prevent and Negate are subsets of canceling, Protection and Immunity are subsets of restricting.
-
I agree on the whole ANB thing.
But can someone please explain to me when an "After the battle..." card takes effect? It would seem to me that if we no longer have cards in battle, that the special abilities of the characters that WERE in battle are no longer in effect. It just seems odd to me that we would allow Hab to destroy Garrison after the battle if they were sitting in opp's territory and had not been used to block, but not if they were used to block, because during the battle they WERE immune.
I guess I just always read "After the battle" to mean that there are no cards in battle anymore and that the surviving cards have returned to territory. Apparently though you can have cards still "in battle" "after the battle"? Try explaining this to an 8 year old in our playgroup :)
Thanks again.
-
I'd agree that Immune and Protect are in the same vein, like Negate, Interrupt and Protect are. But I'd say that, as Interrupt, Prevent and Negate are subsets of canceling, Protection and Immunity are subsets of restricting.
Exactly. They are of a similar type, but one is not a type of the other.
-
But can someone please explain to me when an "After the battle..." card takes effect?
I am suggesting that "After the battle" or "Following the rescue attempt" cards would take effect as the last step of Battle Resolution. As for explaining that to an 8 year old, I would say that part of the battle is deciding at the end who gets to go home and who get discarded or whatever. But those characters returning home is still part of the battle phase, so if someone was immune during that phase, then they still are.
I'd agree that Immune and Protect are in the same vein, like Negate, Interrupt and Protect are. But I'd say that, as Interrupt, Prevent and Negate are subsets of canceling, Protection and Immunity are subsets of restricting.
Again, semantics mostly. But that also makes sense. It still seems like Immune is a subset of Ignore, since all effects of Immune are also found in Ignore. Basically Ignore gives immunity to the player who has it, but also gives it to their ignored opponent, and also restricts ignored characters from entering battle. So Ignore does things that Immune doesn't, but Immune doesn't do anything that Ignore doesn't.
-
That "also" is the reason why they are different abilities with different functions and different definitions. If you start saying that immune is a subset of ignore (apparently in addition to a subset of protect) then look at all the questions you start getting. Does a search for an ignore card let you grab an immune card? Does negating immunity also negate ignore? Or does it maybe negate the immunish parts of ignore but leave the "cannot enter battle" and other portions intact? And this is to say nothing of breaking down the established system of writing the abilities to do what we want them to do simply, when they can be mixed and matched and juxtaposed at will.
OR... we can say ignore is ignore, immune is immune, and protect is protect, and cards that refer to those abilities are specific to each one. It takes five seconds to explain, every reasonable human being can understand it instantly, and there is no gray area whatsoever about whether this card affects that card.
-
OR... we can say ignore is ignore, immune is immune, and protect is protect, and cards that refer to those abilities are specific to each one. It takes five seconds to explain, every reasonable human being can understand it instantly, and there is no gray area whatsoever about whether this card affects that card.
+1
But can someone please explain to me when an "After the battle..." card takes effect? It would seem to me that if we no longer have cards in battle, that the special abilities of the characters that WERE in battle are no longer in effect. It just seems odd to me that we would allow Hab to destroy Garrison after the battle if they were sitting in opp's territory and had not been used to block, but not if they were used to block, because during the battle they WERE immune.
I'm still confused about this along with steffer. I believe Hab should be able to discard Garrison and not because Hab negates his Immune (because he doesn't). In all the parts of <a href="http://www.redemptionreg.com/REG/default.htm?turl=battleresolution1.htm">Battle Resolution</a> in the REG, it says:
1. Both people pass Inish
2. Characters Return
3. Enhancements discarded
4. LS is/isn't given
I believe Abilities triggered by "after the battle" should kick in during Enhancements being discarded or LS being (not being) given. How can the battle be over if the fighters are still there looking at each other? And since Garrison has gone back to his terr, why would his ability still be kicking in? Because it's still the battle phase? That just doesn't make sense to me. Also, under <a href="http://www.redemptionreg.com/REG/default.htm?turl=diagramofaturn.htm">Diagram of a Turn</a> it actually lists Battle Resolution separately from the Battle Phase. A different phase all together!? Who knows! (None of us apparently. ::))
-
And since Garrison has gone back to his terr, why would his ability still be kicking in? Because it's still the battle phase?
Yes, ongoing special abilities (like immunity) continue until the end of the phase unless they are interrupted or negated.
Also, under <a href="http://www.redemptionreg.com/REG/default.htm?turl=diagramofaturn.htm">Diagram of a Turn</a> it actually lists Battle Resolution separately from the Battle Phase. A different phase all together!?
I once thought they might be a different phase, too. However, Battle Resolution is actually part of the Battle Phase. I do agree with you that it's a little confusing to have it pulled out and listed separately in the Diagram of a Turn. Maybe it won't be in the next rulebook :)