Author Topic: Job question (Read 4658 times)

Rawrlolsauce! · « **Reply #25 on:** January 16, 2011, 08:41:23 PM »

Quote from: YourMathTeacher on January 16, 2011, 08:37:31 PM

BTW, did I mention that I can get people into Disney for free?

For the last time, I'm not dressing up as Donald Duck.

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #26 on:** January 16, 2011, 08:43:31 PM »

Quote from: Rawrlolsauce! on January 16, 2011, 08:41:23 PM

Quote from: YourMathTeacher on January 16, 2011, 08:37:31 PM
BTW, did I mention that I can get people into Disney for free?
For the last time, I'm not dressing up as Donald Duck.

Due to recent lawsuits, there is an opening with the Duck. The only other chance you have is to dress up like Rapunzel.

Prof Underwood · « **Reply #27 on:** January 17, 2011, 07:04:53 AM »

Quote from: YourMathTeacher on January 16, 2011, 08:30:31 PM

I think that "Protect" should have a single REG entry that defines it as "Protect from Special Abilities."

If the REG did get such a limited definition of "Protect", then you are correct that this ruling would have to change. However, since there is no such definition limiting the word "Protect" to ONLY refer to special abilities, the ruling is still currently the logical one.

Gabe · « **Reply #28 on:** January 17, 2011, 09:46:53 AM »

Quote from: Job

Type: Hero Char. • Brigade: Blue • Ability: 6 / 12 • Class: None • Special Ability: Protect Job from discard and capture abilities. • Identifiers: OT Male Human • Verse: Job 2:3

It's a well established fact that "abilities" is often used as short hand for "special abilities" for card wording, as is the case with Job's SA. Abilities can also refer to the numbers */* on a character but in this case that wouldn't make sense with "capture abilities" since the abilities on a character don't capture.

That being said I see Job's SA as reading that he's protected from special abilities that would discard or capture him.

Lamborghini_diablo · « **Reply #29 on:** January 17, 2011, 10:20:37 AM »

Quote from: Gabe on January 17, 2011, 09:46:53 AM

Quote from: Job
Type: Hero Char. • Brigade: Blue • Ability: 6 / 12 • Class: None • Special Ability: Protect Job from discard and capture abilities. • Identifiers: OT Male Human • Verse: Job 2:3

It's a well established fact that "abilities" is often used as short hand for "special abilities" for card wording, as is the case with Job's SA. Abilities can also refer to the numbers */* on a character but in this case that wouldn't make sense with "capture abilities" since the abilities on a character don't capture.

That being said I see Job's SA as reading that he's protected from special abilities that would discard or capture him.

Compare job to abiathar. Both were released in the same set.

Abiathar says abilities twice.

Gabe · « **Reply #30 on:** January 17, 2011, 10:52:20 AM »

Quote from: Lamborghini_diablo on January 17, 2011, 10:20:37 AM

Compare job to abiathar. Both were released in the same set.

Abiathar says abilities twice.

A case could be made both ways using that logic. There are other cards in that set that use the same method as Job on their special abilities, like Judas and Ahab's Armor. But I don't think that comparing one card to others in the set is all that relevant compared to just reading the card for what it says.

Lamborghini_diablo · « **Reply #31 on:** January 17, 2011, 11:04:47 AM »

Another comparison:

Enoch (Pa)
Type: Hero Char. • Brigade: White • Ability: 7 / 8 • Class: None • Special Ability: Enoch may be removed from the game, but is prevented from being discarded. • Errata: Protect Enoch from discard. • Identifiers: OT Male Human, Prophet • Verse: Genesis 5:23-24 • Availability: Patriarchs booster packs (Rare)

Enoch has always returned to territory instead of being discarded.

If Job is protected from discard abilities, it would be best to add that in, or else it should be ruled the same way as Enoch as its worded.

Minister Polarius · « **Reply #32 on:** January 17, 2011, 01:24:12 PM »

Gabe, the question here is whether "Protected from Discard and Capture Abilities" should group Discard and Capture together, or Capture and Abilities together. Because of the way English works, it could go either way. The reason it's the latter rather than the former is that other cards from the same set are similarly worded, but specify "Discard Abilities and capture Abilities," so the logical conclusion is that, with the different wording, he is Protected from Discard like Enoch and Simeon are.

To YMT, the default on Protect is protecting from SA's, but sometimes specific wording on a Protect will allow it to protect from other things, just like the default for Capture is "put in your Land of Bondage and treat as a Lost Soul," but the specific wording on some Captures has you put it in your opponent's LoB instead.

TheHobbit13 · « **Reply #33 on:** January 17, 2011, 01:55:12 PM »

Quote from: Alex_Olijar on January 16, 2011, 08:26:39 PM

The discard is a modifier to the protect. He isn't "protected" he is "protected from discard" which modifies the protection to mean protected from any kind of discard.

Couldn't thaddeus' protect from 'EC' be considered a modifier?

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #34 on:** January 17, 2011, 02:10:20 PM »

Quote from: Minister Polarius on January 17, 2011, 01:24:12 PM

To YMT, the default on Protect is protecting from SA's, but sometimes specific wording on a Protect will allow it to protect from other things, just like the default for Capture is "put in your Land of Bondage and treat as a Lost Soul," but the specific wording on some Captures has you put it in your opponent's LoB instead.

I understand what you are saying, and I do not disagree.

I just think that being protected from SAs is more logical than just a blanket protection from "whatever."

Player 1: Can I look at the cards in your territory for a second?
Player 2: You can look at every one except this one, because he's protected.

Minister Polarius · « **Reply #35 on:** January 17, 2011, 02:16:29 PM »

It's not a blanket protection from whatever. It's a protection from SA's unless otherwise specified, just like Capture puts it in your LoB unless otherwise specified, Discard only targets cards in play unless otherwise specified, etc.

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #36 on:** January 17, 2011, 02:25:39 PM »

Again, I do not disagree. I was talking about the idea that "Protect from discard" could not mean anything other than "Protect from discard abilities."

Minister Polarius · « **Reply #37 on:** January 17, 2011, 02:35:09 PM »

Theoretically there should be a good reason to change the rules like that and overturn long-standing combos like zero-defense blockers. Can you provide one?

Prof Underwood · « **Reply #38 on:** January 17, 2011, 04:54:29 PM »

Due to elder disagreement in this thread, this will get discussed on the other side of the forum, and I'll try to return with a conclusive answer

RTSmaniac · « **Reply #39 on:** January 18, 2011, 10:47:46 PM »

thank u sirs

Gabe · « **Reply #40 on:** January 22, 2011, 07:59:37 PM »

Quote from: CactusRob on January 22, 2011, 05:39:42 PM

I wouldn't read too much into the fact the another card in the Priests set used the word "abilities" twice and Job only used it one. My intention on Job is that he is protected from discard abilities and capture abilities. It would have been better if we reversed the order since capture only works as a special ability. Job should read that he is protected from capture and discard abilities. In any case, I don't see him protected from discard if he loses the battle by the numbers.

Cactus Game Design Message Boards

News:

Author Topic: Job question (Read 4658 times)

Rawrlolsauce!

Re: Job question

YourMathTeacher

Re: Job question

Prof Underwood

Re: Job question

Gabe

Re: Job question

Lamborghini_diablo

Re: Job question

Gabe

Re: Job question

Lamborghini_diablo

Re: Job question

Minister Polarius

Re: Job question

TheHobbit13

Re: Job question

YourMathTeacher

Re: Job question

Minister Polarius

Re: Job question

YourMathTeacher

Re: Job question

Minister Polarius

Re: Job question

Prof Underwood

Re: Job question

RTSmaniac

Re: Job question

Gabe

Re: Job question