Author Topic: Uzzah, Abigail and Tower of Thebez (Read 5440 times)

Drrek · « **on:** July 23, 2012, 04:40:25 PM »

So here's a (hopefully) quick question. Let's say I have Tower of Thebez occupied with uzzah in my territory, so tower is not actively negating heroes, because I have one non-Canaanite EC. My opponent makes a rescue attempt with Abigail, so lost souls are protected from my evil cards. I block with uzzah and discard him and an artifact to activate his ability. Because all my ECs are now Canaanites, tower's ability goes off and negates Abigail. Does this allow Uzzah's protection (which the lost souls were previously protected from) to now protect the LSs from rescue? I believe the answer would be yes because Abigail's ability was negated, the only reason I'm not sure is because Uzzah's ability has to complete before the negation of tower activated.

Tower of Thebez (RA2)

Type: Fortress • Brigade: Multicolor • Ability: None • Class: Weapon • Special Ability: While occupied and all your Evil Characters are Canaanites, negate Heroes. Protect contents from opponents. If attacked, you may return a card from here to territory. • Identifiers: None • Verse: Judges 9:51
Abigail (RA2)

Type: Hero Char. • Brigade: Purple • Ability: 4 / 12 • Class: None • Special Ability: You may draw X (limit 3). Protect characters in your territory and Lost Souls in opponent's territory from evil cards. May band to David. • Identifiers: OT Female Human, Israel, Royalty, X = the number of your O.T. Warrior Class Heroes. • Verse: I Samuel 25:32

jbeers285 · « **Reply #1 on:** July 23, 2012, 04:45:23 PM »

Wouldn't uzzah's death end the battle leaving Abigail's ability long enough to save the soul and then tower would negate her after the battle phase?

Professoralstad · « **Reply #2 on:** July 23, 2012, 04:51:11 PM »

Uzzah's ability doesn't end the battle, only end the battle cards do. I can't remember the specifics of the recent (2-3 months ago) question on Iron Pan and Bel's Banquet on the only Bab in play, and I can't find that thread easily on this computer (it's a slow one in my lab), but this question is similar. If the result of that thread was that Iron Pan turned off upon the discard of the Babylonian then BB worked, then I would say that Uzzah's protection would work. If the result was that Iron Pan turned off after BB completed, then I would say that Uzzah's protection wouldn't work; the reasoning is that until Tower begins negating Abigail, Uzzah cannot target the LS's for protection, then by the time Abby is negated, Uzzah was never able to target them and is now discarded.

If someone can find that thread, that will be the answer.

Redoubter · « **Reply #3 on:** July 23, 2012, 07:16:11 PM »

This is the official ruling post and this is the thread that started it. The final ruling was that Iron Pan updates continuously, and therefore when Banquet discards the only Bab in play, it is shut off. However, somehow it still results in a negation of the protection, but that was being debated by none other than you, Prof A

(and I agree with you).

This case is different, though.

In this case, Prof A would be correct that the battle does not go to battle resolution. The protection of Uzzah is ongoing, but the LS are protected from it by Abigail. However, Uzzah being discarded results in Tower of Thebez (which is the same as Iron Pan, having no trigger and being ongoing) negating heroes, as it is continuously checking the state of "all your EC are Black Canaanites" just like Pan is checking for the Bab. Once Abigail is negated, the protection she provided the LS is completely undone, never existing. Not being negated or protected from, the ongoing protection of Uzzah is able to protect the LS now. As there is no removal of Abigail, there is no special initiative to negate Uzzah (or Tower), and so each player may play doms if desired and the battle ends. No LS is rescued.

Professoralstad · « **Reply #4 on:** July 23, 2012, 08:37:16 PM »

After thinking about it, I agree with Redoubter, due to the ongoing (as opposed to instant) nature of Uzzah's ability.

sk · « **Reply #5 on:** July 23, 2012, 09:19:01 PM »

Tower of Thebez (RA2)
Special Ability: While occupied and all your Evil Characters are Canaanites, negate Heroes. Protect contents from opponents. If attacked, you may return a card from here to territory.

At no point diring this senario are both conditions met at the same time. Once Uzzah blocks, it is no longer occupied.

MitchRobStew · « **Reply #6 on:** July 23, 2012, 09:20:38 PM »

Quote from: sk on July 23, 2012, 09:19:01 PM

Tower of Thebez (RA2)
Special Ability: While occupied and all your Evil Characters are Canaanites, negate Heroes. Protect contents from opponents. If attacked, you may return a card from here to territory.

At no point diring this senario are both conditions met at the same time. Once Uzzah blocks, it is no longer occupied.

Uzzah isn't the card occupying Tower of Thebez. He can't. It holds black Canaanites.

sk · « **Reply #7 on:** July 23, 2012, 09:26:28 PM »

Oh. I read "occupied with Uzzah" and saw "in territory" as clarifying text. A re-read and that makes more sense.

I'll go back to my corner.

ChristianSoldier · « **Reply #8 on:** July 23, 2012, 10:06:17 PM »

I would say that Uzzah doesn't protect the Lost Souls in this case:

The reasoning for Iron Pan + BB is that even though Iron Pan is continuously checking, it can't change during the resolution of an ability. It would be similar in this case, and the continuous vs instant shouldn't make a difference because once the targets have been chosen (in this case none that matter) they can't get re chosen even if the protection is negated.

At least that's how I would think it should work.

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #9 on:** July 23, 2012, 10:11:34 PM »

A related idea would be this:

1. I RA with hero.
2. Opponent blocks with Uzzah and activates the protection.
3. I Burial his only LS, then play Harvest Time.

Would the new LS brought in by HT be protected from rescue by Uzzah's ongoing ability?

Prof Underwood · « **Reply #10 on:** July 24, 2012, 10:58:49 AM »

Quote from: Redoubter on July 23, 2012, 07:16:11 PM

Once Abigail is negated, the protection she provided the LS is completely undone, never existing. Not being negated or protected from, the ongoing protection of Uzzah is able to protect the LS now.

I'm not sure this is right.

Imagine I attack with Moses (negate everything) and am blocked with Uzzah and then somehow Moses gets negated later in the battle. At that point Uzzah's ability does NOT kick back in because abilities that don't go off when they are played don't kick in later right?

Similarly if Uzzah can't target the LSs for protection due to Abigail, then he is NOT allowed to re-target later when Abigail gets negated, right?

Quote from: YourMathTeacher on July 23, 2012, 10:11:34 PM

1. I RA with hero.
2. Opponent blocks with Uzzah and activates the protection.
3. I Burial his only LS, then play Harvest Time.

Would the new LS brought in by HT be protected from rescue by Uzzah's ongoing ability?

I think this also goes back to the targeting issue. Uzzah's protection targeted the LSs in play at the time. He can't go back and re-target the new LS pulled out with HT can he?

Minister Polarius · « **Reply #11 on:** July 24, 2012, 04:29:35 PM »

That is correct, cards target and attempt to activate only once in the case of instant abilities.

Redoubter · « **Reply #12 on:** July 24, 2012, 06:23:14 PM »

Quote from: Prof Underwood on July 24, 2012, 10:58:49 AM

Imagine I attack with Moses (negate everything) and am blocked with Uzzah and then somehow Moses gets negated later in the battle. At that point Uzzah's ability does NOT kick back in because abilities that don't go off when they are played don't kick in later right?

You used a completely different example. Protection and negation are two completely different things, and the situations are not comparable.

Quote from: Prof Underwood on July 24, 2012, 10:58:49 AM

Similarly if Uzzah can't target the LSs for protection due to Abigail, then he is NOT allowed to re-target later when Abigail gets negated, right?

Quote from: Minister Polarius on July 24, 2012, 04:29:35 PM

That is correct, cards target and attempt to activate only once in the case of instant abilities.

Quote from: Prof Underwood on July 24, 2012, 10:58:49 AM

I think this also goes back to the targeting issue. Uzzah's protection targeted the LSs in play at the time. He can't go back and re-target the new LS pulled out with HT can he?

And here is where both of your arguments hit a wall: Protection is an ongoing ability. And in fact, it is constantly updating and re-targeting. To prove my point, let's use Miraculous Handkerchiefs.

Type: Artifact • Brigade: None • Ability: None • Class: None • Special Ability: All Heroes in holder's territory and set-aside areas cannot be discarded. Effects of enhancement cards, poisons, and diseases are delayed until Miraculous Handkerchiefs is removed. • Play As: Protect all Heroes in holder's territory and set-aside area from discard. Suspend the effect of ongoing abilities that have a negative effect on those Heroes until this card is deactivated.

This protect ability does not just protect characters who were in territory when it activated. If I activate it and then place another hero in play during Discard Phase, they are not excluded from the protection. Rather, the protection updates to include that hero. Would you argue otherwise?

Let's use Abigail to make this even more clear: If she enters battle and then you play Harvest Time to search out a Lost Soul, are you arguing that soul is not protected by her? Of course it is, that's the nature of protection. It updates continuously.

As far as the comparison to Iron Pan, this case is actually completely different. I now remember why it was ruled that it negated Banquet: It continuously checks, but cannot update during an ability. So when the Bab is discarded, the Banquet protection is still negated. And even though Iron Pan then shuts off, it is not negated. That is the difference in this case.

So where Abigail being negated allows for the ongoing protection of Uzzah to protect the Lost Souls, Banquet's ability is still negated as far as the protection.

ChristianSoldier · « **Reply #13 on:** July 24, 2012, 06:54:15 PM »

I have to admit, if what Redoubter said about protect is true, I'd have to agree with his ruling. It makes a lot of sense and I can't really find any holes in it (assuming he is right about how protect works, and it is consistent with the Protect forts, the only issue that might come up is in how artifacts and forts differ from characters and enhancements)

Minister Polarius · « **Reply #14 on:** July 25, 2012, 03:22:52 AM »

Actually, I think you're wrong about the Iron Pan ruling. I remember it being that ongoing checks are truly dynamic, even in the middle of other abilities.

Regardless, you're missing the fact that abilities that are prevented when played do not reactivate as part of the negate cascade. If I play Protection of Angels on TSA, then you play CWD as an Enhancement, the protection from PoJ does not retroactively take effect. It's the same here, Uzzah's Protect was negated when played.

Now, that was from your perspective of cards not updating in the middle of other cards. If I am correct about that ruling, then Uzzah's protect would not have been Negated at the time of its use (since Tower updated in between his Discard and Protect) and would therefore work. So you're either right about which way the Iron Pan ruling went or you're right about how to rule this situation, but not both.

ChristianSoldier · « **Reply #15 on:** July 25, 2012, 03:53:52 AM »

After reviewing the Iron Pan + BB thread, the ruling is that cards can check conditions during abilities. Therefore I would say that Uzzah should work in this situation because Abigail's ability is negated by the time the protect activates.

I might still be wrong because this game is confusing at times, but that's what it seems like to me.

Prof Underwood · « **Reply #16 on:** July 25, 2012, 09:51:23 AM »

Quote

Conditions do NOT have to wait for active special abilities to finish. Conditions are always checking for an ongoing state and always result in ongoing abilities ("while X is true, give ongoing effect Y").

Card Trigger Effect Ability to insert during SAs
Unknown Nation Manual Instant No, never for triggered abilities
Gates of Samaria Automatic Instant No, never for triggered abilities
Bearing Bad News Automatic Ongoing No, never for triggered abilities
Iron Pan none Ongoing Yes, it updates constantly

OK, so based on that, Tower is a condition (which means that it updates even in the middle of SAs), and both Abigail and Uzzah are NOT.

So here's how I see it at this point:
1 - Uzzah is in play so Tower is NOT negating Abigail when she attacks and protects LSs
2 - Uzzah blocks and discards himself to protect LSs
2b - during that SA, Tower kicks in and negates Abigail so that LSs CAN be targeted
2c - Uzzah IS now able to target them LSs to protect them from rescue
3 - Abigail wins the battle challenge, but does NOT get a LS

Does that look right to everyone?

Minister Polarius · « **Reply #17 on:** July 25, 2012, 02:00:32 PM »

Indeed.

Redoubter · « **Reply #18 on:** July 25, 2012, 06:45:58 PM »

Quote from: Minister Polarius on July 25, 2012, 03:22:52 AM

Regardless, you're missing the fact that abilities that are prevented when played do not reactivate as part of the negate cascade. If I play Protection of Angels on TSA, then you play CWD as an Enhancement, the protection from PoJ does not retroactively take effect. It's the same here, Uzzah's Protect was negated when played.

Okay, seriously, why does everyone continue to try and compare negation to protection?

Abigail DOES NOT negate Uzzah. Does not. Any examples that involve negating Uzzah do not apply. Even if they did, it is an ongoing ability. Ongoing =/ Instant. Ongoing abilities that are un-negated continue.

Quote from: Minister Polarius on July 25, 2012, 03:22:52 AM

Actually, I think you're wrong about the Iron Pan ruling. I remember it being that ongoing checks are truly dynamic, even in the middle of other abilities.

Actually, Underwood gave us the ruling that it still negated Banquet, as it was active during the ability and didn't check until after it completed:

Quote from: Prof Underwood on April 23, 2012, 05:31:16 PM

As promised, we now have an official ruling on this.

Basically what it means for this particular issue is that Iron Pan will activate (even during the short time that Neb is in battle before he is discarded by Bel's Banquet), and therefore it would negate the protect part of Bel's Banquet.

So you don't want to do that

So we may need clarity on that. If it actually updates during an ability, Prof U will have to update the Banquet ruling. If they don't, then this is the actual situation:

1 - Uzzah is in play so Tower is NOT negating Abigail when she attacks and protects LSs
2 - Uzzah blocks and discards himself to protect LSs
2b - Tower kicks in after the SA and negates Abigail so that LSs CAN be protected by an evil card
2c - Uzzah's protection (being ongoing and continuously updated as I showed in previous examples) protects all LS in play
3 - Abigail wins the battle challenge, but does NOT get a LS

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #19 on:** July 25, 2012, 08:02:53 PM »

Quote from: Drrek on July 23, 2012, 04:40:25 PM

So here's a (hopefully) quick question.

Just a reminder that this was the first line in this thread.

Redoubter · « **Reply #20 on:** July 25, 2012, 08:51:42 PM »

Quote from: YourMathTeacher on July 25, 2012, 08:02:53 PM

Quote from: Drrek on July 23, 2012, 04:40:25 PM
So here's a (hopefully) quick question.

Just a reminder that this was the first line in this thread.

When my brother thinks up a ruling situation, he's just praying that's the case. It never is and he knows it.

Minister Polarius · « **Reply #21 on:** July 25, 2012, 11:34:25 PM »

My only error was mistaking Abigail's ability. I got everything else right. It always amuses me when people start posts with "I disagree!" then agree.

Redoubter · « **Reply #22 on:** July 25, 2012, 11:52:40 PM »

Quote from: Minister Polarius on July 25, 2012, 11:34:25 PM

My only error was mistaking Abigail's ability. I got everything else right. It always amuses me when people start posts with "I disagree!" then agree.

I still disagree with you that protection does not reactivate when a negate is undone, as it is ongoing. I pointed out examples that show that protection is continuous and constantly updating.

I also pointed out that your assertion that abilities activate during other abilities was contradicted by Prof U in the Banquet vs Iron Pan thread. Not that I necessarily agree with it, but that is the current ruling.

And as far as the last statement of your post, that I could only be right about the Iron Pan ruling or this ruling, I have shown support for both of my assertions (that it was ruled Iron Pan negated Banquet when used on the last Bab, and that Uzzah can protect LS in this situation) being correct, especially as they do not directly apply to each other.

TL;DR I disagree!

sk · « **Reply #23 on:** July 26, 2012, 10:36:57 PM »

Help me understand... when Uzzah first tries to activate his ability, isn't Abigail protecting the souls from ever being targeted for protection by Uzzah? In that case, how does negating Abigail allow Uzzah to now choose the souls as targets?

In the steps before, step 2a shouldn't allow Uzzah to target the souls. Thus, when 2c occurs, Uzzah's ongoing ability reactivates, but can't choose a new target, so it does nothing.

Prof Underwood · « **Reply #24 on:** July 27, 2012, 09:32:16 AM »

Quote from: sk on July 26, 2012, 10:36:57 PM

In the steps before, step 2a shouldn't allow Uzzah to target the souls. Thus, when 2c occurs, Uzzah's ongoing ability reactivates, but can't choose a new target, so it does nothing.

The thing is that 2a, b, and c all really happen at the same time. So WHILE Uzzah is trying to do his SA the Tower kicks in and negates Abigail. Since this happens DURING Uzzah's SA, Uzzah is still able to target the LSs.

Redoubter · « **Reply #25 on:** July 27, 2012, 06:43:46 PM »

Quote from: Prof Underwood on July 27, 2012, 09:32:16 AM

Quote from: sk on July 26, 2012, 10:36:57 PM
In the steps before, step 2a shouldn't allow Uzzah to target the souls. Thus, when 2c occurs, Uzzah's ongoing ability reactivates, but can't choose a new target, so it does nothing.
The thing is that 2a, b, and c all really happen at the same time. So WHILE Uzzah is trying to do his SA the Tower kicks in and negates Abigail. Since this happens DURING Uzzah's SA, Uzzah is still able to target the LSs.

Again, I would like to point out that Protection is very different from targeting by an instant ability. It is continuous and its 'targeting' (for lack of a better term) is updated continuously. There is no "it cannot target anymore" in this case, like in the case of an instant ability (discard, capture, etc.).

In the same way that Miraculous Handkerchiefs protects heroes in territory that were placed there after it was activated, Covenant with Phineas protects all Priests of the House of Eleazor regardless of if they hit play after it was activated, Altar of Ahaz protects Lost Souls from rescue by Dominants even if they enter play after it is activated (such as off a draw ability or HT), and so on and so on.

That is the nature of protect. It is an ongoing ability that is constantly updating its effects. Once Abigail is negated, Uzzah's SA protects all LS from rescue. Otherwise, the way that Protect works changes completely in this game.

Prof Underwood · « **Reply #26 on:** July 28, 2012, 12:25:40 AM »

Although you are correct that ongoing abilities work differently than instant abilities, it sounds like you may be a bit confused about what happens if they are negated at the time when they begin.

If Moses makes a rescue and is blocked by Uzzah, then Uzzah's protection never starts. Even if later in the battle Moses is negated, Uzzah's special ability will NOT start working.

The reason why Uzzah's ability works in this specific case we are discussing in this thread is because Abigail (who would have stopped Uzzah's ability) is negated by Tower DURING Uzzah's special ability.

Drrek · « **Reply #27 on:** July 28, 2012, 12:27:30 AM »

Quote from: Prof Underwood on July 28, 2012, 12:25:40 AM

Although you are correct that ongoing abilities work differently than instant abilities, it sounds like you may be a bit confused about what happens if they are negated at the time when they begin.

If Moses makes a rescue and is blocked by Uzzah, then Uzzah's protection never starts. Even if later in the battle Moses is negated, Uzzah's special ability will NOT start working.

The reason why Uzzah's ability works in this specific case we are discussing in this thread is because Abigail (who would have stopped Uzzah's ability) is negated by Tower DURING Uzzah's special ability.

Going to point out here, that Abigail does nothing to Uzzah's ability here, it protects the souls. Moses directly affects uzzah's ability by negation, so there is a difference in the two situations.

Redoubter · « **Reply #28 on:** July 28, 2012, 11:51:46 AM »

Quote from: Drrek on July 28, 2012, 12:27:30 AM

Quote from: Prof Underwood on July 28, 2012, 12:25:40 AM
Although you are correct that ongoing abilities work differently than instant abilities, it sounds like you may be a bit confused about what happens if they are negated at the time when they begin.

If Moses makes a rescue and is blocked by Uzzah, then Uzzah's protection never starts. Even if later in the battle Moses is negated, Uzzah's special ability will NOT start working.

The reason why Uzzah's ability works in this specific case we are discussing in this thread is because Abigail (who would have stopped Uzzah's ability) is negated by Tower DURING Uzzah's special ability.

Going to point out here, that Abigail does nothing to Uzzah's ability here, it protects the souls. Moses directly affects uzzah's ability by negation, so there is a difference in the two situations.

This, this, this, THIS.

For the third time this thread, this situation is not the same as negation because Abigail does no such thing. Of course if Uzzah is negated when he enters battle he can never trigger, because the "discard an artifact and Uzzah to..." IS an instant ability. That cannot trigger. However, this case is in no way the same, because the instant part (discarding) is not negated when he enters battle. Therefore, the ongoing protection is active and ongoing.

Again. Abigail =/= Moses.

It does not matter if she is negated during her ability or not. She never negated Uzzah in the first place, and his protection is ongoing and continuously updating. That is the nature of protection, unless we are completely rewriting how it works (points to the many examples I have already given to prove my point). Once her protection is negated, Uzzah's protection updates and protects the LS.

Prof Underwood · « **Reply #29 on:** July 28, 2012, 05:13:35 PM »

OK, I'm glad we're all on the same page now, then

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #30 on:** July 28, 2012, 08:05:05 PM »

Quote from: Prof Underwood on July 28, 2012, 05:13:35 PM

OK, I'm glad we're all on the same page now, then

I'm still on page 1.

Redoubter · « **Reply #31 on:** July 28, 2012, 10:21:53 PM »

Quote from: Prof Underwood on July 28, 2012, 05:13:35 PM

OK, I'm glad we're all on the same page now, then

I think while we both reach the same ending, the path there is not the same at all, and that is actually important to point out. You say:

Quote from: Prof Underwood on July 28, 2012, 12:25:40 AM

The reason why Uzzah's ability works in this specific case we are discussing in this thread is because Abigail (who would have stopped Uzzah's ability) is negated by Tower DURING Uzzah's special ability.

First, that goes against your previous ruling on Iron Pan and Banquet. In this post, you stated that while Iron Pan turns off during the ability, it cannot insert between two parts of the same ability. You ruled that Banquet is still negated because Iron Pan cannot be turned off during the ability. While I don't agree with that ruling in respect to the Ruling on Triggers and Duration, that is what we'd been told to go off of. If you're changing that ruling, that'd be welcomed (especially since it says of Iron Pan in that update "Ability to insert during SAs...Yes, it updates constantly"), but we'd need to see that officially.

Second, protection is part of Category 4 (no trigger, continuously ongoing, updates constantly). Therefore, if Abigail were negated later in battle (assume a band to Uzzah), the protection of Uzzah, being ongoing and updating constantly, would protect all LS from rescue. That is the nature of protection, and I have pointed out many examples to support my case. If you would like more, let me know.

Minister Polarius · « **Reply #32 on:** July 29, 2012, 12:58:51 AM »

The ruling on triggers and duration is an official ruling. You need to stop getting so hung up on Iron Pan.

Redoubter · « **Reply #33 on:** July 29, 2012, 01:29:47 PM »

Quote from: Minister Polarius on July 29, 2012, 12:58:51 AM

The ruling on triggers and duration is an official ruling. You need to stop getting so hung up on Iron Pan.

I'm trying to get clarification. He says in this thread that Iron Pan can insert in between abilities on a card and that is why he is ruling this case as he is. However, he said the exact opposite in the thread I linked to. And that thread does not jive with the overall ruling.

In addition, all of it has nothing to do with this situation, which is what I'm trying to show, and it matters greatly to similar rulings (not involving Tower, but other negation).

I'm not hung up on anything: This needs clarified.

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #34 on:** July 29, 2012, 03:07:50 PM »

Quote from: Minister Polarius on July 29, 2012, 12:58:51 AM

The ruling on triggers and duration is an official ruling. You need to stop getting so hung up on Iron Pan.

You seem to be missing his screen name. Once he doubts something, he's going to keep doubting it over and over again.

Minister Polarius · « **Reply #35 on:** July 29, 2012, 03:09:08 PM »

No, it doesn't. He made an incorrect ruling (or a ruling that predated the definition) in the past. That doesn't need clarification, we have a definitive top-down definition for how this all works that directly cites the exact example you're talking about. We could have twenty Elders come on here and say that Iron Pan doesn't activate in between abilities and they'd still be wrong unless they changed the definition.

@YMT, nice.

Redoubter · « **Reply #36 on:** July 29, 2012, 07:15:19 PM »

Quote from: Minister Polarius on July 29, 2012, 03:09:08 PM

No, it doesn't. He made an incorrect ruling (or a ruling that predated the definition) in the past. That doesn't need clarification, we have a definitive top-down definition for how this all works that directly cites the exact example you're talking about. We could have twenty Elders come on here and say that Iron Pan doesn't activate in between abilities and they'd still be wrong unless they changed the definition.

He was the one who posted the definition in the post he made the ruling I am questioning. Go back and actually read the threads. He was ruling based on the new ruling. Seriously, if you don't believe me, go and look for yourself. If you actually read my post and where I linked to, you'd see what I mean. It wasn't corrected or questioned in that thread thereafter. I'm asking for a clarification, which is warranted, since he is ruling in both instance.

In addition, I'm asking for a discussion about my assertion that the protection would work even if Abigail were negated later in the battle. He is asserting that it only works because Abigail is negated during his ability, but I have provided ample proof that Protection works in such a way that if Uzzah were banded into battle and able to discard himself and an artifact, then Abigail were later negated in the battle, his Protection would still work. That discussion has not been responded to, except to compare it to negation, which has no bearing on this at all.

I actually have legitimate concerns here that have not been addressed. Please read the entirety of my posts before summarily dismissing what I say (again and again).

Minister Polarius · « **Reply #37 on:** July 30, 2012, 12:22:37 AM »

He was just the one presenting the ruling the PTB had come up with by consensus regarding updating conditions. The fact that he immediately misinterpreted it and ruled incorrectly has no bearing. Top-down rules cannot be stricken down by a single elder, and he has obviously corrected his error since. Drop it.

Redoubter · « **Reply #38 on:** July 30, 2012, 01:01:32 AM »

Quote from: Minister Polarius on July 30, 2012, 12:22:37 AM

He was just the one presenting the ruling the PTB had come up with by consensus regarding updating conditions. The fact that he immediately misinterpreted it and ruled incorrectly has no bearing. Top-down rules cannot be stricken down by a single elder, and he has obviously corrected his error since. Drop it.

I'm not just asking for a clarification on that, although it needs addressed specifically (last I heard, Elder rulings were still important, and I need to know what he currently thinks of that rule). Once again, I am posing a different situation and question that has not been addressed. I don't appreciate you telling me I can't present additional questions or ask for clarification, especially when what I originally asked is not addressed. Everyone else (yourself included) does this regularly, and you responding specifically to me constantly is getting old. So I'll ask you to kindly allow the Elder to respond and not respond just to attack me personally.

Minister Polarius · « **Reply #39 on:** July 30, 2012, 02:18:38 AM »

I'm not attacking you personally, I'm defending the top-down rules system. Elder rulings are important, but there seems to be a pervasive attitude of "yeah, it directly contradicts the ruling, but an elder said so!" I am not against you getting clarification per se, but the very fact that you're asking for it in this situation means you either don't understand or don't trust the top-down rulings system. Trust me, you do not want to go back to the days of bottom-up.

As to whether ongoing effects continue to ping if the source of the ability is no longer in play, I would also like to hear that. I know that ongoing continuously activates, but at the same time, no other card is able to activate from the grave that I know of. It's a question of whether to update "ongoing abilities" to specify that they only continue to target while in play, or to explicitly state that they continue to ping even if removed from play if not negated. I'm fine either way, but you're right that the rules don't clearly tell us which way it is currently.

Redoubter · « **Reply #40 on:** July 30, 2012, 07:08:17 AM »

Quote from: Minister Polarius on July 30, 2012, 02:18:38 AM

I am not against you getting clarification per se, but the very fact that you're asking for it in this situation means you either don't understand or don't trust the top-down rulings system. Trust me, you do not want to go back to the days of bottom-up.

I certainly understand the system, and I understand that it supersedes an Elder ruling, but I don't trust everyone to also understand that. One host using that one ruling as precedent in a tournament since it also contained the release of the top-down ruling is not good, so I would like it to be clarified. Not for me, but for the game in general.

On your second part, I'm glad we at least agree on that (that there is a question to be pondered). For the activating from the grave, I would point out that even if you CM a FBTN character in a band, the negation persists for the rest of battle. Other ongoing effects also continue and update their targets as normal. Unless the effect were to be negated, ongoing effects continue uninterrupted regardless of where the card the SA was on ends up.

Minister Polarius · « **Reply #41 on:** July 30, 2012, 07:34:29 AM »

So much for FbtN not being related to the question

Prof Underwood · « **Reply #42 on:** July 30, 2012, 10:12:57 AM »

OK, I went back and posted on the Iron Pan ruling. Redoubter is correct that it needed fixing, and Pol is correct that I made an incorrect interpretation of a brand new ruling there. I was still getting used to that ruling.

Pol is also correct that a top-down rule takes precedence over a single elder ruling. But Redoubter is also correct that as Elders we need to try to get things right as much as we can. And YMT is funny

As for the question of whether Uzzah can protect from the grave as in the situation below, that is new territory and I'd welcome some discussion on that before making a ruling.

Step 1: Abigail makes a rescue attempt.
Step 2: Gomer + Uzzah block
2b: Uzzah decides to discard himself and an artifact even though it's not currently working
Step 3: Gomer has init and plays Image of Jealousy on Abigail to negate her.
Question: Does Uzzah's protection then kick in now that Abigail isn't stopping him anymore?

Minister Polarius · « **Reply #43 on:** July 30, 2012, 05:33:33 PM »

NB4 "Abigail doesn't Negate Uzzah."

Redoubter · « **Reply #44 on:** July 30, 2012, 07:25:23 PM »

Quote from: Prof Underwood on July 30, 2012, 10:12:57 AM

Pol is also correct that a top-down rule takes precedence over a single elder ruling. But Redoubter is also correct that as Elders we need to try to get things right as much as we can. And YMT is funny

Agreed all around (yeah, yeah YMT), and thanks for going back to look at that thread

Quote from: Minister Polarius on July 30, 2012, 07:34:29 AM

So much for FbtN not being related to the question

Not directly, but you were asking about abilities targeting once the card left play, and that's an example relevant to the situation

Quote from: Prof Underwood on July 30, 2012, 10:12:57 AM

Question: Does Uzzah's protection then kick in now that Abigail isn't stopping him anymore?

The essence of this question is: Is Protection, in general, an ongoing effect that is continuously updating?

I argue that it is, and I will give many scenarios (in the form of questions) to support my assertion. If I am wrong, then the way they have been ruled all-around will have to change/update.

- Miraculous Handkerchiefs -

Type: Artifact • Brigade: None • Ability: None • Class: None • Special Ability: All Heroes in holder's territory and set-aside areas cannot be discarded. Effects of enhancement cards, poisons, and diseases are delayed until Miraculous Handkerchiefs is removed. • Play As: Protect all Heroes in holder's territory and set-aside area from discard. Suspend the effect of ongoing abilities that have a negative effect on those Heroes until this card is deactivated.

Artifacts only activate during Artifact Activation, and therefore if Protection does not update, then any heroes placed in territory after 'activation' cannot be protected. It has always been ruled that is protects 'all' in territory, regardless of when they hit (Battle Phase, Discard Phase, after activation in Prep Phase, etc.). But since it has no specific triggers, it only activates that one time during its owner's turn, even if its effect is ongoing, and if targets do not update, this would change the ruling.

Do heroes placed after activation get the protection?

- Abigail -

Type: Hero Char. • Brigade: Purple • Ability: 4 / 12 • Class: None • Special Ability: You may draw X (limit 3). Protect characters in your territory and Lost Souls in opponent's territory from evil cards. May band to David.

Drawn Out
Type: Hero Enh. • Brigade: Purple • Ability: None • Class: None • Special Ability: Take an O.T. male human Hero from deck, discard pile, or hand and put it in territory. Place this card on that Hero. Protect that Hero from evil discard abilities.

Harvest Time
Type: Lamb • Brigade: None • Ability: None • Class: None • Special Ability: If your opponent has no Lost Soul in play, search their draw pile for a Lost Soul and put it into their territory. Shuffle that draw pile.

Abigail protects all characters in your territory and LS in your opponents, and it has always been ruled that they are protected regardless of when they hit those locations. If Abigail plays Drawn Out in battle and places a hero in territory, it is in the range of her protection. If the rescuing hero enters with Abigail and then plays Harvest Time, the LS is in Abigail's area of protection. Characters only activate once, when they enter battle, and therefore if Protection does not update, then in each of those cases the card would not be protected from evil cards. I have never seen it ruled that way.

Is a character/LS brought into play in these situations protected from evil cards?

Redoubter · « **Reply #45 on:** July 30, 2012, 07:26:25 PM »

- Thaddeus -

Type: Hero Char. • Brigade: Purple • Ability: 8 / 8 • Class: None • Special Ability: Protect all cards in play, set-aside area, Artifact piles, hands, and decks from Evil Characters with toughness X or less. Cannot be interrupted.

Sent Two by Two
Type: Hero Enh. • Brigade: Purple • Ability: 2 / 2 • Class: None • Special Ability: Negate special abilities on demons. Disciples are immune to demons. If a lone disciple is in battle, band a disciple into battle. Cannot be negated.

Philip
Type: Hero Char. • Brigade: Purple • Ability: 9 / 7 • Class: None • Special Ability: You may search deck for Bartholomew. May band to Bartholomew. Immune to Greek Evil Characters. Cannot be negated.

Thaddeus's protection has always been ruled to protect all cards in his target areas from EC of appropriate toughness. While I could give many examples of cards entering one of those areas, I'll use Sent Two By Two. If Thaddeus needs numbers and uses it to band to Phillip, who then searches out Bartholomew, he would still be protected if Protection updates. Otherwise, he is no longer a card in deck (where he was originally when the protection initially triggered), and would not be protected if there is no updating of protection; I have never seen it ruled in this manner.

Is Bartholomew protected from EC of appropriate toughness when he hits play?

- Protect Forts -

This will be more of a general discussion. The question is: When do fortresses update? They have no activation period except for when they hit play. Would this mean that a fortress with a protect ability only protects those characters it could target when it hit play? Of course this would not be a position held by anyone I know, but there is no other rule for fortresses on when they activate. If protection does not update continuously, then when do these fortresses protect the characters targeted?

Are characters protected by Protect Forts protected continuously, regardless of when they hit play?

- Conclusion -

As the above examples show, there are many different ways that Protection is introduced to a game, and they all have different moments of 'activation' in which they would target if Protection does not update continuously. Nowhere is this clearer than with Protect Forts, which would not work at all as intended (or ruled) if Protection did not update continuously. It would completely change rulings, and complicate the game, to change the nature of protection. We would need to start tracking the moment each card hits play (due to protect artifacts like Miraculous Handkerchiefs, Altar of Ahaz, Covenant of Phineas, etc.) and it would also complicate the Battle Phase with cards like Thaddeus protecting some cards, not protecting others, and with no clear reason why.

In addition, if we go by the Official Ruling on Triggers, Conditions, and Duration, then Protection falls into the 4th category - the same as Iron Pan. It has no trigger, is ongoing, is continuously updated, and can insert itself between abilities.

Therefore, Protection should be able to update its targets continuously, ongoing as long as the ability continues and is not negated.

In this case, that means that once Abigail's protection is negated, the protection of Uzzah is able to protect the LS.

ChristianSoldier · « **Reply #46 on:** July 30, 2012, 10:15:06 PM »

I actually like Redoubter's interpretation of protection. It makes sense and is consistent with how it works on fortresses and artifacts.

Prof Underwood · « **Reply #47 on:** July 31, 2012, 11:26:24 AM »

OK, that's a good case for one side. Any opposing thoughts?

Redoubter · « **Reply #48 on:** November 02, 2012, 09:40:18 PM »

Quote from: Prof Underwood on July 31, 2012, 11:26:24 AM

OK, that's a good case for one side. Any opposing thoughts?

Bumping to see if we have a definitive ruling on this issue, as there is another thread asking similar questions about whether protection updates continuously.

News:

Author Topic: Uzzah, Abigail and Tower of Thebez (Read 5440 times)