Cactus Game Design Message Boards

Actually, that is what's being argued here. I don't agree that they go back to Deck.

If you check what's being argued here its that RBD would send those cards to Hand because they are not D/C'd.

Revealing cards doesn't mean they go back to Deck. I would say that if the Discard is stopped, the ability doesn't give any provision to put it back on Deck.

Revealing cards doesn't mean anything, except that the cards are revealed.  Reveal abilities are almost always followed by another action (place in your hand, place beneath deck, return to deck in any order, etc.) because Reveal abilities always only reveal.  There is no precedent that they should be added to hand.

The discard ability of RBD doesn't give any provision to put cards protected from discard back on deck because that is ridiculous and unnecessary.  Should every discard ability ever printed have such a clause?  That would just add extra wording for a special ability when a game rule already exists to deal with it - when cards are revealed with no other action taken on them, they are returned to deck in the same order they were revealed.

That's what I am saying. The Instead doesn't complete so it does not Instead.

Which is the point of contention. I read the SA as "If Draw INSTEAD reveal and discard."

If my reading of 4DC is correct, that's not the case. If part of the cost of a cost/effect ability (which is the converse of what "instead" is in mechanics) is not paid, the effect does not happen.

RBD attempts to instead a draw by revealing and discarding the same number of cards that would have been drawn. It succeeds in revealing them, but not Discarding them, so the price for the instead is not paid and the cards are then drawn.

The question is whether the discard/place ability is part of the instead or not, and if so, whether the interpretation of the rules that Pol has (apparently based on an Elder ruling from an earlier thread) is accurate or not. Personally,  I disagree with Pol, however, I can see where he might be correct.

but what I'm saying is your are not negating the discard. When you play christian Martyr on joseph without negating his ability CM isn't negated you just cant target him. because you Can reveal the drawn cards you can target them for the reveal, but not the discard. You turned the draw in to a reveal but cant turn it in to a discard.

My point is that it did complete. You can target the cards for the reveal therefore it turns the draw in to reveal and discard but the cards are protected from discard so you can only reveal.

My point is that it did complete. You can target the cards for the reveal therefore it turns the draw in to reveal and discard but the cards are protected from discard so you can only reveal.

His opinion is that, if the entire instead does not complete (and in this example, it cannot complete if Pol's interpretation of the card is correct, because the cards are not then discarded), then no part of the instead can complete, and the cards go to hand. I personally disagree with this view, but that's what he's saying.

I am under the same impression as Pol: that if any part of an instead can't be carried out, the instead as a whole fizzles (much like costs).

Well, then I would ask you this: If my deck is protected from reveal but not discard, would RBD discard all the face-down drawn cards? If so, then you're right. If not, then Pol is correct.