Author Topic: Does 4D coin protect from RBD? (Read 7425 times)

Chronic Apathy · « **Reply #50 on:** April 16, 2012, 02:28:47 PM »

Quote from: browarod on April 16, 2012, 02:24:01 PM

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.

I disagree with your conclusion. The discard hinges on the reveal for sure, but the way is card is worded right now (separated into the two sentences), I'm interpreting the card quite literally. I think that the period separating the sentences separates the abilities as well. To answer your original question, it could go either way. The discard may hinge on the reveal, however, that doesn't mean the discard is a part of the instead.

Drrek · « **Reply #51 on:** April 16, 2012, 02:59:27 PM »

Quote from: Chronic Apathy on April 16, 2012, 02:28:47 PM

Quote from: browarod on April 16, 2012, 02:24:01 PM
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.

I disagree with your conclusion. The discard hinges on the reveal for sure, but the way is card is worded right now (separated into the two sentences), I'm interpreting the card quite literally. I think that the period separating the sentences separates the abilities as well. To answer your original question, it could go either way. The discard may hinge on the reveal, however, that doesn't mean the discard is a part of the instead.

I don't think that the separating of the sentences separates the abilities as well, based off the revealer ruling. In that one, the place part of the ability was separated from the reveal by periods, yet it was ruled that the place referred back to the reveal as "As instructions for the "opponent" who did the revealing, as to what they should do with the two revealed cards."

Quote from: Gabe on January 17, 2012, 11:04:54 PM

"When you draw this card, each opponent must reveal the top two cards of his draw pile. Place each revealed Lost Soul in owner's Land of Bondage. Place the rest beneath owner's draw pile."

The first sentence instructs the opponent to do the revealing, so the owner of the deck is the person who reveals their top 2 cards. I think we all agree on that.

The next two sentence could be read two different ways:

1) As two independent place abilities, no longer controlled by the opponent, but by the owner of the Revealer Lost Soul.

2) As instructions for the "opponent" who did the revealing, as to what they should do with the two revealed cards.

I believe that the second option is the correct interpretation. The two place abilities are instructions tied to the reveal ability. For that reason I've always allowed my opponent to choose the order of the two cards from my "Revealer" (if neither were Lost Souls), and chosen the order myself when my deck was revealed. It seems right that such a powerful Lost Soul as the "Revealer" would have a small, potential drawback of allowing the opponent stack their own bottom of the deck to their possible benefit.

For those that are unfamiliar with the reason a player is allowed to choose the order of the two cards, this is from the REG entry on Place abilities.

"If multiple cards are placed in the same location by the same place ability, the player placing them chooses what order to place them."

megamanlan · « **Reply #52 on:** April 16, 2012, 09:33:28 PM »

I agree. They're linked to the Instead, and it's not completed of part of the effect is not completed.

Redoubter · « **Reply #53 on:** April 16, 2012, 09:41:27 PM »

Quote from: megamanlan on April 16, 2012, 09:33:28 PM

I agree. They're linked to the Instead, and it's not completed of part of the effect is not completed.

I still cannot understand any argument that these are separate, so they all must occur.

Let me play Convincing Miracle (because it'll be a miracle if anyone is convinced by the other side):

Convincing Miracle (RA)

Type: Hero Enh. • Brigade: Yellow • Ability: 1 / 4 • Class: None • Special Ability: Search discard pile for a N.T. human Hero and place it in territory. Convert a human Evil Character to a white brigade Hero. Cannot be negated if opponent has less than ten cards in deck

The abilities are all separated, but are you telling me that if there are no EC or they are all protected, I cannot pull the hero? Of course I can do it. They are not dependent, there is no "to" to indicate that there is actually a cost or benefit. There are just abilities that occur in order.

Rain Becomes Dust (Pi)

Type: Curse • Brigade: Gray • Ability: 1 / 5 • Class: None • Special Ability: All cards that an opponent draws because of a special ability used by that opponent are revealed instead. Place all revealed Lost Souls in opponent’s territory. Discard the rest.

Nowhere in either special ability is there a cost or benefit. There is no "X to Y". It is X occurs, then Y occurs. That's the whole point. This is how special abilities work and I am baffled that this argument is still going. You can be protected from the latter ability (just like you can be protected from the Convert in Convincing Miracle), but that doesn't stop the rest (just like I could still pull out a NT hero).

Chronic Apathy · « **Reply #54 on:** April 16, 2012, 09:43:54 PM »

Quote

I don't think that the separating of the sentences separates the abilities as well, based off the revealer ruling. In that one, the place part of the ability was separated from the reveal by periods, yet it was ruled that the place referred back to the reveal as "As instructions for the "opponent" who did the revealing, as to what they should do with the two revealed cards."

Actually, the way Revealer works is exactly how I think RBD should work, and I still think that it can go either way. My whole point is that the discard, while hinging on the reveal, is still a separate ability. The card reads, "Do this. Now do this after you've done that."

megamanlan · « **Reply #55 on:** April 16, 2012, 10:58:51 PM »

Part of the Problem is that RBD is old, which means it doesn't have current wording (or correct wording). RBD is quite like Revealer vs. Convincing Miracle doesn't have that same wording. RBD is explaining what to do, Convincing Miracle is doing 3 different effects that are not tied to each other.

I'd suggest looking at what was posted about Revealer a couple posts up. Gabe explained that Revealer does not change from your Opponent revealing to you doing the rest. The entire effect is connected together as one even if it has periods in it. RBD is the same, it's explaining how you are going to Instead the ability (if that makes sense...) by saying Reveal the cards drawn, Place LS's in play and Discard the Rest. It's simply using grammar for that. It's like saying that Wash Basin has multiple effects, which it doesn't.

Redoubter · « **Reply #56 on:** April 16, 2012, 11:07:47 PM »

Quote from: megamanlan on April 16, 2012, 10:58:51 PM

It's like saying that Wash Basin has multiple effects, which it doesn't.

It does have multiple effects. There is a Reveal, and then a Discard. You can be protected from the Discard, but if you are not protected from the Reveal, it still happens.

Also, I did read the Revealer post above. It has absolutely nothing to do with the RBD discussion, because he is very clear that he is referring to two different instances of "Place" (since you are placing up to two cards). He is not even saying that if the Place is somehow not allowed that the Reveal doesn't happen, just that it requires the Reveal in the first place.

You won't be able to point to a spot in that post where it actually says that all of the abilities are a single ability tied to each other and protected against as one. He actually is trying to determine who controls the Place. That is completely different and irrelevant.

So, both of your examples there do not disprove my statements. You still do each piece, as much as you are able. The rules have always been that you do as much as you are able. This case is no different and you haven't shown otherwise.

megamanlan · « **Reply #57 on:** April 16, 2012, 11:40:06 PM »

The point is saying that its not seperated effects and its worded quite close to Revealer.

Redoubter · « **Reply #58 on:** April 17, 2012, 07:10:12 AM »

Quote from: megamanlan on April 16, 2012, 11:40:06 PM

The point is saying that its not seperated effects and its worded quite close to Revealer.

Which actually means nothing. Nowhere in Gabe's post did he say that it all being connected meant that all abilities on all similar cards cannot happen unless every single ability can. His whole post was about who was able to Place.

Read it again.

Chronic Apathy · « **Reply #59 on:** April 17, 2012, 10:11:32 AM »

Quote from: megamanlan on April 16, 2012, 10:58:51 PM

Part of the Problem is that RBD is old, which means it doesn't have current wording (or correct wording). RBD is quite like Revealer vs. Convincing Miracle doesn't have that same wording. RBD is explaining what to do, Convincing Miracle is doing 3 different effects that are not tied to each other.

RBD is from Priests, which isn't old in the least. By that point in time, proper wording was pretty normal, and really, I don't think there's anything wrong with the wording here. I actually think that Gabe's post can be used to offer support for both our sides, but ultimately, I don't think that that particular ruling is really that relevant, aside from having similar wording.

Josh · « **Reply #60 on:** April 17, 2012, 12:51:14 PM »

From the REG, regarding Instead abilities and protection:

"If a card is immune or otherwise protected from the new effect, the original effect is still applied. If a card is immune or otherwise protected from the original effect, the card is not affected at all.

Example: "… blue Heroes that would be discarded are returned to territory instead", with two other active effects: "N.T. Heroes are protected from withdraw abilities" and "O.T. Heroes are protected from discard abilities". Because the blue N.T. Heroes are protected from withdraw, they are discarded as normal. Because the blue O.T. Heroes are protected from discard, they are unaffected."

So if your deck is protected from Reveal (e.g., Simon the Zealot), then the Instead doesn't happen. But what if your deck is only protected from part of the new effect? The Reveal happens first, and 4DC does not protect against this. The Instead should happen, to the full extent it can, unless an ability is protected against.

I see this as the same as using Zeal for the Lord when only 1 evil character is in play. You do as much as you can - having 2 ECs in play is not a requirement for Zeal to work. Similarly, using RBD against an opponent that has 4DC active does all that it can - it Insteads the Draw by Revealing instead, it Places lost souls in play, and there is no Discard. And that is completely ok, because the Reveal is not dependent on the Discard, just as Zeal is not dependent on having 2 ECs in play.

Professoralstad · « **Reply #61 on:** April 17, 2012, 03:45:38 PM »

FWIW, it is my interpretation that RBD's reveal is the only "instead" ability. The discard/put in play instructs you as to what to do after the reveal.

megamanlan · « **Reply #62 on:** April 17, 2012, 03:51:28 PM »

The problem is where does it go after that?

lp670sv · « **Reply #63 on:** April 17, 2012, 03:57:32 PM »

back to where it came from just like every other reveal.

Quote from: REG

Revealing a card does not change its location, just its visibility.

megamanlan · « **Reply #64 on:** April 17, 2012, 04:04:49 PM »

The card changes where it goes.

Chronic Apathy · « **Reply #65 on:** April 17, 2012, 04:09:14 PM »

Quote from: megamanlan on April 17, 2012, 04:04:49 PM

The card changes where it goes.

From everything that is posted here, assuming that Prof A and I are correct, here's what happens:
Card gets revealed and the instead completes. Lost Souls are put in play, and the rest go back to the top of the deck.

lp670sv · « **Reply #66 on:** April 17, 2012, 04:12:39 PM »

No it doesn't, it changes the draw in to a reveal and then tries to discard but if you're protected from the discard the discard can't target it thus it doesn't happen so now it goes from draw these cards to just reveal these cards and since reveal doesn't change the location they stay in deck.

Chronic Apathy · « **Reply #67 on:** April 17, 2012, 04:14:33 PM »

Quote from: lp670sv on April 17, 2012, 04:12:39 PM

No it doesn't, it changes the draw in to a reveal and then tries to discard but if you're protected from the discard the discard can't target it thus it doesn't happen so now it goes from draw these cards to just reveal these cards and since reveal doesn't change the location they stay in deck.

Are you responding to me or megamanlan, because that's roughly what I said.

lp670sv · « **Reply #68 on:** April 17, 2012, 04:27:28 PM »

Megamanlan

Redoubter · « **Reply #69 on:** April 17, 2012, 07:10:20 PM »

To respond to the question about how Reveal changes where the cards go back to:

Eve (Di)

Type: Hero Char. • Brigade: Blue • Ability: 7 / 3 • Class: None • Special Ability: Reveal the top X cards of deck. Add to hand all revealed humans. Eve ignores female Evil Characters.

It never says where to put the cards, but we don't argue that they are added to hand. They go back to where they were originally, and that is the deck (in their original order). Because the instead changes the draw to a reveal, if it does not specify where they end up, then they default to the location they were revealed from (the deck).

Minister Polarius · « **Reply #70 on:** April 18, 2012, 04:02:27 PM »

Quote

I see this as the same as using Zeal for the Lord when only 1 evil character is in play. You do as much as you can - having 2 ECs in play is not a requirement for Zeal to work.

Your post is solid except for this part. "Instead" is a converse cost/benefit ability. That's not in question here and it is an indesputable fact, you are not allowed to "do as much as you can" for an Instead to work, you must do it all or the original effect happens. What's in question is how much of RBD's effect is part of the instead and how much is unrelated to the instead. The way I read it, the discard is part of the instead, but the other side is also valid. Only one of us can be right, but neither is wrong based on the rules or logic.

Redoubter · « **Reply #71 on:** April 18, 2012, 04:47:23 PM »

Can you provide the reference or ruling that you are using to say that Instead isn't also "as much as you can", which is the game rule that governs all similar situations? There is no basis from the REG or rulings I have ever seen to state that all abilities from an Instead must happen for the Instead to even take place.

Minister Polarius · « **Reply #72 on:** April 18, 2012, 05:06:15 PM »

Because it is a cost/benefit ability mechanically. "Do X to not do Y." If part of X is not done (the instead ability) you do not get to not do Y (the original ability). For example, when you play Primary Objective with Chamber up and an Angel in hand, you don't get to rescue a soul for force your opponent's discard because you didn't Discard your whole hand. You didn't Discard the Angels. Doing as much as you can is not sufficient.

Chronic Apathy · « **Reply #73 on:** April 18, 2012, 05:08:12 PM »

Quote from: Redoubter on April 18, 2012, 04:47:23 PM

Can you provide the reference or ruling that you are using to say that Instead isn't also "as much as you can", which is the game rule that governs all similar situations? There is no basis from the REG or rulings I have ever seen to state that all abilities from an Instead must happen for the Instead to even take place.

Herod's Temple is a great ruling to point to. It's unusable if you don't have enough cards in your deck for the discard.

Redoubter · « **Reply #74 on:** April 18, 2012, 05:16:04 PM »

Quote from: Minister Polarius on April 18, 2012, 05:06:15 PM

Because it is a cost/benefit ability mechanically. "Do X to not do Y." If part of X is not done (the instead ability) you do not get to not do Y (the original ability). For example, when you play Primary Objective with Chamber up and an Angel in hand, you don't get to rescue a soul for force your opponent's discard because you didn't Discard your whole hand. You didn't Discard the Angels. Doing as much as you can is not sufficient.

You're mixing up X, Y, and cost/benefit.

There is no cost benefit. Something happens to the cards instead of what was originally intended. In this case, they are Revealed. Then more happens to them. If the cards are protected from Reveal, then the original ability resolves. Otherwise, the cards are Revealed. What happens after that can be protected against as well, but that would not stop the cards from having been Revealed.

Your example has nothing to do with this case. It has everything to do with the fact that the card was not actually discarded because of the Instead. They are not even comparable, I have no idea where you're going with that.

News:

Author Topic: Does 4D coin protect from RBD? (Read 7425 times)

Chronic Apathy

Chronic Apathy

Chronic Apathy

Chronic Apathy

Chronic Apathy

Chronic Apathy