Cactus Game Design Message Boards
Redemption® Collectible Trading Card Game HQ => Official Rules & Errata => Ruling Questions => Topic started by: Isildur on June 18, 2010, 10:46:22 PM
-
I ra with a random Silver Hero and play Second Seal to bring every one in. Say I then have inish I play "Put to Flight". Would "Put to Flight" negate all of Second Seal? or would it only negate it bringing in the EC's? Same question goes for an opponent playing Siege.
Thanks!
-
Special abilities Please.
I'd say SS is not negated because it is NOT an evil banding card, while siege IS negated because it IS an evil banding card.
-
Put to Flight
"All Banding of EC's is prevented and/or negated for remainder of battle."
Note this is the warriors version but I think the kings one is the same.
I'd say SS is not negated because it is NOT an evil banding card, while siege IS negated because it IS an evil banding card.
I was asking if only the evil character banding was negated and would the good banding still work?
-
I don't think the EC part of Second Seal is technically banding, I think it is part of the more general "add to battle" category. So Put to Flight wouldn't negate any part of Second Seal.
It would negate the EC's banding of Siege, but not the Heroes being added to battle, so it would be all of one player's heroes vs. the lone EC in this situation.
-
I don't think the EC part of Second Seal is technically banding, I think it is part of the more general "add to battle" category. So Put to Flight wouldn't negate any part of Second Seal.
I thought that any ability that added a character to battle was considered a banding ability. Is this wrong?
-
Banding can only add to your side of the battle. So The Second Seal bands all of your Heroes in, and, in a more general sense, "adds to battle" your opponent's EC's.
-
This is news to me since I have been previously informed that Wool Fleece stops the EC's from entering battle when second seal is played.
Type: Artifact • Brigade: None • Ability: None • Class: None • Special Ability: No Evil Characters may band • Play As: Evil Characters are prevented from banding. • Identifiers: None • Verse: Judges 6:36-38 • Availability: Patriarchs booster packs (Rare)
Has there been a ruling change that I missed?
-
no, wool fleece still stops ec's from entering battle when ss is played.
-
Would wool fleece simply prevent ANY of Second Seal from activating? I dont remember if you can negate parts of a cards ability.
-
no, wool fleece still stops ec's from entering battle when ss is played.
In that case why wouldn't put to flight function the same way?
Would wool fleece simply prevent ANY of Second Seal from activating? I dont remember if you can negate parts of a cards ability.
Why not? HOH, Trembling Demon.
-
Good point with HoH and TD.
Heres another question. What happens if I play siege with HHI up?
HHI: Banding of Heroes is prevented. Good banding cards are ignored.
-
Assuming that Wool Fleece stops Second Seal from bringing in any EC's, the reverse would be true for HHI and Siege (no heroes are brought in). But I have my doubts that Wool Fleece stops Second Seal from bringing any EC's in, because I don't think I can band anyone to my opponent's side of the battle.
-
Lets take a look at the wordings again:
Siege
All of holder's Evil Characters in play and all of opponent's Heroes in play must join the battle.
Second Seal
All of holder's Heroes in play and all of opponent's Evil Characters in play must join the battle.
They're both the same, but opposites. Also, can you prevent half of a cards ability, when its all one sentence? Trembling demon's SA is two sentences.
-
In the REG, both Siege and The Second Seal are classified as banding cards. I believe that the combos mentioned with Wool Fleece and Household Idols both work.
The rules of banding don't allow you to add a character to your opponent's side of the battle unless the banding card specifies otherwise. Both Siege and The Second Seal specify otherwise.
-
The rules of banding don't allow you to add a character to your opponent's side of the battle unless the banding card specifies otherwise. Both Siege and The Second Seal specify otherwise.
So then Put to Flight works to stop only the evil banding?
-
i would say so.
-
In the REG, both Siege and The Second Seal are classified as banding cards. I believe that the combos mentioned with Wool Fleece and Household Idols both work.
The rules of banding don't allow you to add a character to your opponent's side of the battle unless the banding card specifies otherwise. Both Siege and The Second Seal specify otherwise.
So can you prevent half of a one sentence ability? I'd assume its the SAME ability that bands in everyone.
-
I don't see why not. Jerusalem Tower prevents your Discard Pile from having stuff Discarded, but if someone activates that Egyptian curse, JT doesn't prevent it from happening to other opponent's D/C piles. In the same way, Siege with Wool Fleece up tries to band everyone in, but the Evil Characters portion is prevented, so only your opponent's Heroes eat your Korah's Rebellion.
-
Jerusalem Tower prevents your Discard Pile from having stuff Discarded, but if someone activates that Egyptian curse,
When you say Discard Pile, are you talking about Draw Pile? Because, I remember Jerusalem Tower didn't say anything about Discard Pile, and also JT doesn't prevent draw pile from discard, it is protected from discard. That is why Gabriel, confusion can look through deck but not taking out any cards. Just a clarification. Thank you.
Michael Leung
-
I don't see why not. Jerusalem Tower prevents your Discard Pile from having stuff Discarded, but if someone activates that Egyptian curse, JT doesn't prevent it from happening to other opponent's D/C piles. In the same way, Siege with Wool Fleece up tries to band everyone in, but the Evil Characters portion is prevented, so only your opponent's Heroes eat your Korah's Rebellion.
Jersualem Tower: All opponents are prevented from removing cards from holder's draw pile. Draw pile may still be searched, revealed, and/or shuffled.
Oppressed and Robbed: While your human Evil Character is blocking, abilities that discard cards from draw piles cannot be negated.
Thats a COMPLETELY unrelated example. The curse does nothing to negate half of J-Towers SA, it just bypasses it with CBN. Also, based on the wordings, I'd say it would allow ANY players deck to be targeted for discard, since its worded similar to A-Pole. So, does anyone else have an example of negating half of a one sentence ability? I don't think it is/should be possible.
-
No no, the curse that Discards the top pile of every draw pile, not Oppressed and Robbed (Given Over to Egypt, I think?).
It works the same way. The Curse's ability is all one sentence (the relevant part), but is prevented from targeting some targets, but not others (the player with JT v. the player without JT). Siege w/Wool Fleece works the same.
-
Given Over to Egypt: On activation, if an Egyptian is in play, discard the top card of each opponent's deck. If any are Lost Souls, put them in play instead and discard this Curse at the end of the phase.
Ahh, I see what you mean now.
I don't quite understand how at the EXACT same moment, its prevented against one player, but not against everyone else. It targets all opponents decks at the same time.
Does this mean if I rescue with Shammah, and prevent Wrath of Satan, all heroes except mine are discarded? Its the exact same principle. If a card is prevented, its ability stops for the whole phase, period.
I still fail to see how you can prevent half of a one sentence ability.
-
You're not preventing half of an ability. The ability is carried out in full, but is prevented from actualizing some of its targets.
-
You're not preventing half of an ability. The ability is carried out in full, but is prevented from actualizing some of its targets.
Thats the job of PROTECT. Protect makes it so you cant target X cards. Prevent STOPS the ability from even activating, period. You know... its like a pre-emptive negate...? Negates have absolutely nothing to do with actualizing targets.
So answer my question about Shammah + Wrath. Why would shouldn't my opponents heroes be discarded if what you say is true.
X card is preventing Y card.
Y Card tries to activate and target Z cards in every players territory.
Its the same situation in both cases. They should work the same way.
-
Maybe because even though the ability activates all at once it is multi step.
EG
Try to d/c player 1's DP, JT prevents.
Try to d/c player 2's DP, no JT, top card is discarded.
etc.
-
Based on the wording of Given over to Egypt, I doubt it works like that.
-
Would you say that in Multiplayer, the presence of JT for any of the players would stop Given Over to Egypt for all of the players?
-
If all the player is being targeted is you and your partner, then yes, JT protects the decks from having the top card being discarded. The fortress is saying protect "holder" deck from discard, the holder is the entire team, so the curse would not affect any of you.
-
If all the player is being targeted is you and your partner, then yes, JT protects the decks from having the top card being discarded. The fortress is saying protect "holder" deck from discard, the holder is the entire team, so the curse would not affect any of you.
Multi player not TEAMS
-
Would you say that in Multiplayer, the presence of JT for any of the players would stop Given Over to Egypt for all of the players?
I would say yes. It prevents the card from activating against ANYONE, since it hits everyone's deck at the exact same time. It cant be prevented and not prevented in the same instant. You were treating J tower as a protect, which would shield the holder of J Tower. Prevents/negates don't do that however. As I said before, If one player prevents Wrath of Satan, then it can't activate during that phase, period.
IF it were phrased so that it discarded the top card of the current players turn, then I would agree with you. However, it does not.
My original question still stands then, can you prevent half of a one-sentence ability? I really do not think you can or should.
*EDIT*
However, if you wanted to be evil, you could have both J Tower AND Given Over to Egypt in your territory and it would still work, assuming nobody else has J Tower. It'd work because GOtE does not target the owners deck.
-
That is a different between "protect" and "prevent", what Jerusalem Tower's affect is a protect ability although it said "prevent opponent from discard", "prevent opponent from discard" is a protect ability, because it is targeting opponent, therefore, opponent cannot discard cards from that draw pile. In the other hand, if JT say "prevent opponent's Evil character from discarding holder's cards from the deck, than that is a preventing deck, and so if the evil character say discard cannot be negated, it will work. The current ability with JT is preventing opponent, from discarding cards of holder's deck, therefore is a protect deck. Hopefully, this is clear up.
ML.
-
You know what you guys just need to play Climb the Walls before you do anything ::) Makes life alot easier :P
-
No, it prevents opponents cards. This is why Oppressed and Robbed bypasses JTower, because it grants those cards CBN status, so J Tower cannot prevent them. If J Tower was a protect, O&R would not work against it.
J Tower does not protect, it prevents. This is how I have always heard it ruled.
I vote J Tower receives another play as:
"Prevent all cards used by opponents that remove cards from holder's deck. (the clarifying text is the same)"
-
No, it prevents opponents cards.
But it doesn't say that. It says that it stops opponent's from taking card out of holder's draw pile. It doesn't say that it stops opponents from taking cards out of anyone else's draw pile.
So basically J-Tower is more like a protect than a prevent.
-
So basically J-Tower is more like a protect than a prevent.
That is how it should be played but right now as the "play as" is worded it says that it would prevent any card trying to hit your draw pile which means Given Over would be prevented.
Imo the "play as" needs to be changed either that or keep it this way I always did think it was op'd that Given Over hit all draw piles in Multi :p
-
No, it prevents opponents cards.
But it doesn't say that. It says that it stops opponent's from taking card out of holder's draw pile. It doesn't say that it stops opponents from taking cards out of anyone else's draw pile.
So basically J-Tower is more like a protect than a prevent.
So then the card that is DESIGNED to bypass J Tower (Oppressed and Robbed) now does nothing? I know for a fact I've seen rulings say that CBN abilities bypass J Tower, because J Tower is a prevent, not a protect.
Can all the elders get together and finally decide if this card is a protect or a prevent? It can't be worded as one and function as another. Whichever ability it ends up being, can we possibly re-word the card to say either:
1) Protect cards in your draw pile from being removed by opponents. Draw pile may still be searched, revealed, and/or shuffled.
2) Prevent all cards used by opponents that remove cards from your draw pile. Draw pile may still be searched, revealed, and/or shuffled.
-
jtower is a prevent. oppressed and robbed is not stopped by jtower. what is the fuss here?
-
jtower is a prevent. oppressed and robbed is not stopped by jtower. what is the fuss here?
I agree with this, but people are saying its actually a protect...?
So basically J-Tower is more like a protect than a prevent.
If J Tower is treated as a protect rather than a prevent, then O&R became just about useless.
-
what its 'more like' doesnt negate the current REG listing. its listed as a prevent. o&r is a cannot be negated. o&r cannot be stopped by jtower.
-
Again, I agree thats how it should be, but an elder just said its more like a protect. I'll wait until more elders join in before I outright call it a protect.
However, I still think J Tower should prevent Given Over to Egypt from discarding the top card of ANY players deck. You cant partially prevent and not prevent a card in the same phase.
-
what its 'more like' doesnt negate the current REG listing. its listed as a prevent.
This is correct for now. I apologize for any confusion caused by my previous comment. I'll let a more experienced elder handle this one.
-
So... my two questions remain unanswered:
1) Can you negate/prevent half of a one-sentence ability
2) Does J Tower prevent Given Over to Egypt from activating against any player?
-
Or, instead of getting drawn into a false dichotomy, can Prevents stop some cards from being targeted by a one-sentence ability?
-
Or, instead of getting drawn into a false dichotomy, can Prevents stop some cards from being targeted by a one-sentence ability?
Prevent stops cards from activating.
From the REG:
Prevent is a special ability used to preempt (stop) another card’s special ability. In order for a prevent card to stop the special ability of another card, it must be played before that card. A prevent card is unlike interrupt and negate cards because it cannot undo a special ability on a card that has already been played. Prevent takes precedent over “interrupt” when the prevent is played first. (For example, Captain of the Host says that all spe cial abilities except for banding are interrupted and prevented. If he is blocked by King of Tyrus, whose special ability negates all abilities, Captain of the Hosts special ability is not negated since it is already preventing King of Tyrus special ability). This ability stops things that have not yet happened. It cannot undo things that have already happened.
I see nothing in there about prevent dealing with a cards targets. Prevent simply stops another cards special ability from activating, that is all.
-
I see nothing in there about prevent dealing with a cards targets. Prevent simply stops another cards special ability from activating, that is all.
Great observation. That is why, beginning after nationals, Jerusalem Tower will be ruled a protect, rather than a prevent.
JT is a prevent now, but only because that is the status quo/ how it is classified in the REG.
For some history: JT was written before the game had clarified the differences between prevent and protect. Once those differences were made clear, we had to go back and fit all the old cards into one ability or the other. Enoch was a problem, since he uses the word "prevented" but is actually a protect ability. JT was also a difficult one to place, since it had "no opponent may" similar to the old wording for prevents, and it ALSO had a restriction for targets (your draw pile), which is only ever found on protects. We chose to classify it as a prevent. In retrospect, I don't think that was the best choice.
Since JT mentions the targets of the abilities, and says opponent can't remove them (and it doesn't even specify which abilities it supposedly prevents), we've decided to classify it as a protect. This has a Rob stamp. Again, it will go into effect beginning after nationals.
-
So until the change occurs, does J Tower stop GOtE from activating against all players?
Also, while you're here, the original question of negating half of a one sentence ability is unanswered.
-
So that means JT protects from Harvest Time? Awesome.
-
Since JT mentions the targets of the abilities, and says opponent can't remove them (and it doesn't even specify which abilities it supposedly prevents), we've decided to classify it as a protect. This has a Rob stamp. Again, it will go into effect beginning after nationals.
Oppressed and Robbed won't be nearly as useful after Nationals :)
-
Oppressed and Robbed won't be nearly as useful after Nationals :)
Oddly enough your wrong about this and the reason is not related to JT. :)
-
Oppressed and Robbed won't be nearly as useful after Nationals :)
Oddly enough your wrong about this and the reason is not related to JT. :)
Awesome! I'm glad I'm wrong :D
-
So until the change occurs, does J Tower stop GOtE from activating against all players?
Yes. A prevent prevents an ability. It does not limit targets. I know that doesn't seem intuitive based on reading JT, and that is why JT is being changed after nationals. But for now, yes, one JT prevents any special ability that DOES or COULD target your draw pile. That means player A's JT prevents Player B's Confusion, even if player B intended to use it against player C. Prevents target special abilities BEFORE targets are selected. Again, it is not intuitive, I know. It will be changed.
Also, while you're here, the original question of negating half of a one sentence ability is unanswered.
The length of the ability (one sentence or more) does not matter. What matters is how many different special abilities there are. You look at each special ability separately. In the case of GOtE, there is only one special ability (discard). That is either prevented or it is not.
-
I AM SO HAPPY JT IS GOING IN ALL MY DECKS I HATE HARVEST TIME
i am way sad, r.i.p. Woman at the Well/Seeker of the Lost...
So, since you've been here twice, how about Siege with Wool Fleece? Two abilities or one ability that gets entirely prevented?
-
Also, while you're here, the original question of negating half of a one sentence ability is unanswered.
The length of the ability (one sentence or more) does not matter. What matters is how many different special abilities there are. You look at each special ability separately. In the case of GOtE, there is only one special ability (discard). That is either prevented or it is not.
I didn't mean just JT vs GOtE. As Pol said, the original debate was about preventing/negating half of Siege or Second Seal, both of which are one sentence abilities.
-
I AM SO HAPPY JT IS GOING IN ALL MY DECKS I HATE HARVEST TIME
i am way sad, r.i.p. Woman at the Well/Seeker of the Lost...
So, since you've been here twice, how about Siege with Wool Fleece? Two abilities or one ability that gets entirely prevented?
The way I see it, there is only one ability on Siege and Second Seal the way they are worded. "Do X and Y." seems distinct from "Do X. Do Y.", and both cards are of the former persuasion. Also, since Wool Fleece is worded similarly to JT (and both wordings seem kind of confusing given that prevents target abilities and not people or characters, right?) it would seem they have the same effect when it comes to multiple parts of an ability.
It seems to me that JT effectively works like this (currently): "Prevent all abilities that allow an opponent to remove a card from your draw pile" and Wool Fleece would similarly work like this: "Prevent all abilities that allow Evil Characters to band". In that case, I would say that Wool Fleece would entirely stop both Siege and Second Seal (given that bringing in the EC's is in fact banding, which as I've stated before seems strange to me).
Wool Fleece
Type: Artifact • Brigade: None • Ability: None • Class: None • Special Ability: No Evil Characters may band • Play As: Evil Characters are prevented from banding. • Identifiers: None • Verse: Judges 6:36-38 • Availability: Patriarchs booster packs (Rare)
Jerusalem Tower
Type: Fortress • Brigade: Multicolor • Ability: None • Class: None • Special Ability: No opponent may remove a card from holder's draw pile. Draw pile may still be searched and/or shuffled. • Play As: All opponents are prevented from removing cards from holder’s draw pile. Draw pile may still be searched, revealed, and/or shuffled. • Identifiers: None • Verse: Nehemiah 12:38 • Availability: Patriarchs booster packs (Rare)
In regard to your RIPs, Sven, I honestly don't think that WatW will be affected too much by the ruling (and I haven't even seen Seeker in a deck for quite some time). First, I still believe that JT will be a card that will be primarily only used by the few who are paranoid about deck discard, which is currently few from my observation. Second, in-play Fortresses (especially good ones) have never been easier to negate/discard than they are now, and that is a trend that I foresee will continue into the future.
-
I just realized Wool Fleece's play as could be interpreted two different ways as well...
is it...
Prevent all abilities that allow evil characters to band.
or
Prevent all banding abilities on evil characters.
-
The way I see it, Evil Character banding can happen one of two ways:
An Evil Character can use a printed/gained ability to band.
A character can play an enhancement to band in additional evil characters.
So when WF says EC's are prevented from banding, I'm inclined to say that it uses the first definition.
-
I AM SO HAPPY JT IS GOING IN ALL MY DECKS I HATE HARVEST TIME
i am way sad, r.i.p. Woman at the Well/Seeker of the Lost...
So, since you've been here twice, how about Siege with Wool Fleece? Two abilities or one ability that gets entirely prevented?
EGYPTIAN RAAAAAAAAAAAAAGE!
-
I just realized Wool Fleece's play as could be interpreted two different ways as well...
is it...
Prevent all abilities that allow evil characters to band.
or
Prevent all banding abilities on evil characters.
1st. it is a blanket ability. there is nothing on the card to suggest it is only innate banding.
-
I AM SO HAPPY JT IS GOING IN ALL MY DECKS I HATE HARVEST TIME
i am way sad, r.i.p. Woman at the Well/Seeker of the Lost...
... pretty much the entire Luke/John theme.
-
So I have a question...
is forcing your opponent to draw considered removing cards from their deck?
If yes, after JT is changed to a protect, what happens when my opponent plays Mayhem? Am I stuck with no cards in my hand?
-
is forcing your opponent to draw considered removing cards from their deck?
My initial reaction is no, but since forcing your opponent to discard the top card of his deck has typically been that way (I assume), then I can't think of a good reason why. The way I see it, we either have to make any ability that says "opponent must discard the top card of his deck" not stopped by JT, or get stuck with the Mayhem situation you describe, along with other scenarios (Hur, Love at First Sight, etc.) I would bet that the first option is more palatable to the PTB.
-
I just realized Wool Fleece's play as could be interpreted two different ways as well...
is it...
Prevent all abilities that allow evil characters to band.
or
Prevent all banding abilities on evil characters.
1st. it is a blanket ability. there is nothing on the card to suggest it is only innate banding.
I agree. It seems to me that Siege and Second Seal have one "add to battle" (band?) ability that is has multiple card types as targets.
-
If yes, after JT is changed to a protect, what happens when my opponent plays Mayhem? Am I stuck with no cards in my hand?
Note necessary, because Mayhem state allowing all player shuffle their deck and draw six cards, not discarding or removing any cards.
My biggest problem is having JT protects deck from women at the well and harvest time.
Thanks.
ML
-
Note necessary, because Mayhem state allowing all player shuffle their deck and draw six cards, not discarding or removing any cards.
If you noticed, I asked before that if forcing an opponent to draw was considered removing cards from their deck.
-
If yes, after JT is changed to a protect, what happens when my opponent plays Mayhem? Am I stuck with no cards in my hand?
Note necessary, because Mayhem state allowing all player shuffle their deck and draw six cards, not discarding or removing any cards.
My biggest problem is having JT protects deck from women at the well and harvest time.
Thanks.
ML
We're forcing your draw.
Draw: Removing a card from deck and adding to hand.
-
im pretty sure theres a distinct difference between removing, drawing, and searching from deck.
Draw: Removing a card from deck and adding to hand.
searching for a card and adding to hand is NOT the same as drawing.
-
I agree, because if you force your opponent to draw, that consider remove, then many cards would not work when JT is out. For example, Martha, Angel at Harvest, the Grey negate enhancement and the Luke and John enhancement that cannot be negated, and meeting the Messiah. So much more. Protect deck from remove is talking about discard, because to me, remove in redemption means you cannot use them anymore, if you put it in hand, that means you still have a chance to use it. Like forgotten history, it removes four cards from discard pile, that means you cannot use them anymore. That is my point of clarification.
Thanks.
ML
-
Taking a card out of the opponents deck and putting it in play is considered Removing it from their deck. There have been debates about if Harvest Time is stopped by J Tower, and for a while it wasn't. The reason being was that J Tower was a prevent, and Harvest Time could not be negated.
So, if Harvest Time is considered "removing from the deck" why wouldn't forced drawing?
-
Taking a card out of the opponents deck and putting it in play is considered Removing it from their deck. There have been debates about if Harvest Time is stopped by J Tower, and for a while it wasn't. The reason being was that J Tower was a prevent, and Harvest Time could not be negated.
So, if Harvest Time is considered "removing from the deck" why wouldn't forced drawing?
Like you said, taking removing from the deck and play it, so that means it stops women at the well and harvest time, but forcing people to draw is not a removing and put it in play. Remove and put it in play means discard or search or do something to that card, that is what removing is, it is specifically do something to a card, which drawing is random. Force to draw is just a affect allowing player(s) to draw, so it shouldn't fall under the category of remove a card from deck.
Thank you.
-
I would like J Tower to protect from "forced drawing" because for game play purposes this helps stop some of the pain that is caused by Abom decks and hopefully would encourage users of those decks to have an actual defense with their greek stuff instead of just like 3 greek dudes, high places, some sites and abom. This would also help stop a few cards I expressed concern about during play testing which might become a problem if forced drawing has no counter.
-
But that is the beauty of Gold Luke and John, Mayhem and Abomination. That is the purpose of making that card. I vote to stay at it is, or else Gold would just got kill. Thank you.
Michael Leung
-
But that is the beauty of Gold Luke and John, Mayhem and Abomination. That is the purpose of making that card. I vote to stay at it is, or else Gold would just got kill. Thank you.
Michael Leung
Luke would, Judges would be fine but I agree. Protect = OP.
-
But that is the beauty of Gold Luke and John, Mayhem and Abomination. That is the purpose of making that card. I vote to stay at it is, or else Gold would just got kill. Thank you.
Michael Leung
But it wouldnt be killed the only difference is that your defense would need cards to kill O.T forts which would like I said make sure that Greek decks have more then 6 cards for a defense. And there are plenty of ways to stop O.T forts too ranging from place cards to discard cards like set fire.