Author Topic: destructive sin (Read 734 times)

sepjazzwarrior · « **on:** March 04, 2012, 06:34:42 PM »

does placing destructive sin on a hero count as harming that hero or as a negative effect to that hero?

jmhartz · « **Reply #1 on:** March 04, 2012, 11:06:00 PM »

Quote from: sepjazzwarrior on March 04, 2012, 06:34:42 PM

does placing destructive sin on a hero count as harming that hero or as a negative effect to that hero?

I believe the answer is yes. I think Prof Alstad ruled it that way regarding a question about placed EEs on Job, and that Job would go to Dust and Ashes.

Harm means (rough translation) being targeted by a card of a different alignment. Destructive Sin targets the hero when it says "Place on a hero...".

EDIT

I looked up "Harm" in the REG and it redirected me to "Negative Effect", which reads:

Negative Effect

A negative effect is any effect from cards not of the same alignment (i.e., good, evil, or neutral) targeting a character.

sepjazzwarrior · « **Reply #2 on:** March 04, 2012, 11:32:48 PM »

but i thought that negating a character's ability didn't count as harm, and that would fall under targeting a character of a different alignment

Chris · « **Reply #3 on:** March 04, 2012, 11:34:13 PM »

Quote from: sepjazzwarrior on March 04, 2012, 11:32:48 PM

but i thought that negating a character's ability didn't count as harm, and that would fall under targeting a character of a different alignment

Negate might not (I don't know), however, a placed card on a hero, regardless of the ability, would count as harm (provided the card is of the opposite alignment).

SirNobody · « **Reply #4 on:** March 08, 2012, 08:08:32 PM »

Hey,

Quote from: REG:Place.How to Play

A place ability targets the cards that are to be placed. If a card is placed on another card, the underlying card is not targeted by the place ability.

So the placing of destructive sin on a hero does not target the hero it is placed on and thus does not harm the hero it is placed on.

Tschow,

Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly

TimMierz · « **Reply #5 on:** March 08, 2012, 08:22:12 PM »

While that seems accurate from the REG quote, that also seems absolutely ridiculous and counterintuitive.

TheHobbit · « **Reply #6 on:** March 08, 2012, 08:37:26 PM »

I agree with Tim #2. Job has always been able to go to D&A if he gets hit by DS.

Professoralstad · « **Reply #7 on:** March 08, 2012, 09:45:58 PM »

Quote from: TimMierz on March 08, 2012, 08:22:12 PM

While that seems accurate from the REG quote, that also seems absolutely ridiculous and counterintuitive.

At face value it does, but let's look at the English for a minute:

If an ability says "Discard a hero" you have an implied subject "(You)" a verb "Discard" and a direct object "Hero".
If an ability says "Place this card on a Hero" you have an implied subject "(You)" a verb "Place" and a direct object "this card". On a Hero is merely a prepositional phrase, and as we all learned in middle school (or 2nd grade if you were homeschooled...

), prepositional phrases are unnecessary. It does actually make sense to state that the only target is the place card, as that is the way the English works in most abilities.

browarod · « **Reply #8 on:** March 08, 2012, 10:11:45 PM »

Quote from: Professoralstad on March 08, 2012, 09:45:58 PM

prepositional phrases are unnecessary.

That's so not true *English minor raves*. "Place this card" doesn't make sense in English grammar or in Redemption terminology, so the prepositional phrase is necessary to determine where, or on what, you're placing the card. Whether or not that means it targets the Hero, I don't know, but the prepositional phrase is absolutely necessary. Though, considering DS says "that hero" in the second part of its ability, I don't see how it could NOT target the Hero, otherwise there would be no "that hero".

Either way, the point is moot for DS because as soon as it starts to negate the ability (which is immediately upon placing it) it's harming the hero.

Professoralstad · « **Reply #9 on:** March 08, 2012, 10:46:29 PM »

Quote from: browarod on March 08, 2012, 10:11:45 PM

Quote from: Professoralstad on March 08, 2012, 09:45:58 PM
prepositional phrases are unnecessary.
That's so not true *English minor raves*. "Place this card" doesn't make sense in English grammar or in Redemption terminology, so the prepositional phrase is necessary to determine where, or on what, you're placing the card. Whether or not that means it targets the Hero, I don't know, but the prepositional phrase is absolutely necessary. Though, considering DS says "that hero" in the second part of its ability, I don't see how it could NOT target the Hero, otherwise there would be no "that hero".

Either way, the point is moot for DS because as soon as it starts to negate the ability (which is immediately upon placing it) it's harming the hero.

What I meant about unnecessary is that they are not necessary to make a complete English sentence. "Place this card." is a grammatically correct sentence, albeit not a very useful one. Obviously the prepositional phrase is necessary for purposes of the ability.

And negates never target cards. They target abilities. Else, there could never, ever, ever be a counter to something that protected itself from opponents' cards (like Caesarea Phillipi). I don't think anyone wants that.

browarod · « **Reply #10 on:** March 09, 2012, 02:12:42 AM »

Quote from: Professoralstad on March 08, 2012, 10:46:29 PM

And negates never target cards. They target abilities. Else, there could never, ever, ever be a counter to something that protected itself from opponents' cards (like Caesarea Phillipi). I don't think anyone wants that.

I know it targets abilities, but abilities are part of a card (unless "Anatomy of a Card" in the REG is wrong) so why does negating an ability not count as harm? Does "protection from opponents" share the same definition as "harm" in terms of what triggers it? If not, then there isn't a problem with my interpretation. If it does, then I ask why?

Professoralstad · « **Reply #11 on:** March 09, 2012, 01:34:41 PM »

Protect X from Y means that X cannot be targeted by Y. So if a negate targeted the card with the ability, then for example, Thaddeus' enhancements would be CBN vs. a qualifying EC, CP would be indestructible, etc. It's a possibly confusing but definitely necessary distinction.

browarod · « **Reply #12 on:** March 09, 2012, 02:32:48 PM »

Quote from: Professoralstad on March 09, 2012, 01:34:41 PM

Protect X from Y means that X cannot be targeted by Y. So if a negate targeted the card with the ability, then for example, Thaddeus' enhancements would be CBN vs. a qualifying EC, CP would be indestructible, etc. It's a possibly confusing but definitely necessary distinction.

I know they're distinct, I just don't see why they can't still be distinct while treating negating as harm. Am I missing something?

I don't think there's anything in the rules that says protection stops harm (if said harm can get around targeting the card as a whole), so would it really be detrimental to treat negating an ability as harm but still get around protection? I mean, if we're talking real life and my "special ability" is, say, preaching, I would definitely consider it harm if you taped my mouth shut and prevented (negated) me from speaking.

sepjazzwarrior · « **Reply #13 on:** March 09, 2012, 02:54:10 PM »

The rational I've heard in the past for negating an ability not counting as harm is that some heroes actually harm themselves with their abilities (most of the 1/1 heroes for example) so negating their ability wouldn't be harm, so a top-down ruling would be that negating any ability doesn't harm the character. I don't know if that applies here, I just thought I would share

Professoralstad · « **Reply #14 on:** March 09, 2012, 02:59:13 PM »

The issue is that harm can only happen when a card of a different alignment targets a card. Heroes can negate themselves or other heroes (playing blessings, magnificat, banding to an FBTN hero, etc.). Thus.negating cant be harm unless we change the definition. I don't see that as being necessary.

browarod · « **Reply #15 on:** March 09, 2012, 03:20:38 PM »

I never suggested that a hero negating another hero should be considered harm, so I don't really see your point. It's not harm for a hero to discard himself/another hero, why would it be harm for a hero to negate himself/another hero? That's doesn't detract from what I was asking at all.

Professoralstad · « **Reply #16 on:** March 09, 2012, 04:08:19 PM »

I realized that you are correct on that point after posting. Sorry about that.

The point still stands though that harm means a card is being targeted by a card with a different alignment. Protect means a card can't be targeted. Thus protect means a card can't be harmed. That is the rule, and has been for quite awhile. There's nothing broken about it, so I don't really know why anything needs to be changed.

Korunks · « **Reply #17 on:** March 09, 2012, 04:21:30 PM »

I am struggling with the idea that you do not target a card by placing something on it, unless I miss understood that part of the discussion.

Professoralstad · « **Reply #18 on:** March 09, 2012, 04:24:53 PM »

I agree it is kind of an odd concept, however, it helps to think of targets as cards that you do things to. You discard a Fortress, capture a Hero, rescue a Lost Soul, place a card, etc. When you place something ON a card, it's like setting the table. You are not actively doing anything to the table by setting a plate on it, you are only actively doing something to the plate.

TheHobbit · « **Reply #19 on:** March 09, 2012, 04:32:21 PM »

Is there any reasons why a card can't target a character and his special ability at the same time?

Korunks · « **Reply #20 on:** March 09, 2012, 07:21:41 PM »

Quote from: Professoralstad on March 09, 2012, 04:24:53 PM

I agree it is kind of an odd concept, however, it helps to think of targets as cards that you do things to. You discard a Fortress, capture a Hero, rescue a Lost Soul, place a card, etc. When you place something ON a card, it's like setting the table. You are not actively doing anything to the table by setting a plate on it, you are only actively doing something to the plate.

But when you set a table you are doing something to it, you cover it with a table cloth, occupy some of its surface area, possibly leave residue behind. Those are actions performed to the table. Perhaps a bad analogy. But I could have sworn I saw a ruling the [card=674]Destructive Sin (TP)[/card] sent [card=1380]Job (Pi)[/card] to [card=718]Dust and Ashes (Di)[/card]

sepjazzwarrior · « **Reply #21 on:** March 11, 2012, 04:26:45 PM »

did we ever come to a final verdict on this?

EmJayBee83 · « **Reply #22 on:** March 11, 2012, 08:12:13 PM »

Quote from: sepjazzwarrior on March 11, 2012, 04:26:45 PM

did we ever come to a final verdict on this?

You have one elder (Sir Nobody) offering a ruling. You have a second (Professoralstad) agreeing and explaining/defending the ruling. That seems like a final verdict to me--unless another elder cares to chime in in dissent.

Minister Polarius · « **Reply #23 on:** March 11, 2012, 08:52:16 PM »

Actually, read the explanation of elders again. An official ruling is made by a consensus of the Elders and is merely reported on this side of the board. Two elders agreeing with no disagreement means that you can take it with a good degree of confidence.

EmJayBee83 · « **Reply #24 on:** March 11, 2012, 10:54:56 PM »

Quote from: Minister Polarius on March 11, 2012, 08:52:16 PM

Actually, read the explanation of elders again.

Thanks for the advice, Pol. I didn't realize how woefully unlearned I was about the process by which rulings are made.

Sorry for jumping the gun, sepjazzwarrior. You can have a good degree of confidence that the ruling will be as stated and confirmed on this thread.

Minister Polarius · « **Reply #25 on:** March 13, 2012, 01:30:36 AM »

No problem. I thought it was "two elders makes it official" too until I reread the actual thread more closely. Placing cards on characters of opposite alignment has been ruled as harm in the past, so while I have no problem with it not being harm anymore, I'm confident that whichever side the elders decide on will be more correct for having been vetted.

SirNobody · « **Reply #26 on:** March 15, 2012, 05:31:27 AM »

Hey,

Quote from: sepjazzwarrior on March 11, 2012, 04:26:45 PM

did we ever come to a final verdict on this?

Yes, it was discussed by the elders during the drafting of the REG and the sentence I quoted from the REG states our conclusion.

Harming is causing a negative effect. Negative effect is being targeted by a card of a different alignment. The REG clearly states that the underlying card is not targeted by the place ability. I realize that it's a little counter-intuitive, but I don't know how you could come to any other conclusion based on what's in the REG.

Tschow,

Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly

Korunks · « **Reply #27 on:** March 15, 2012, 01:38:16 PM »

Quote from: SirNobody on March 15, 2012, 05:31:27 AM

Hey,

Quote from: sepjazzwarrior on March 11, 2012, 04:26:45 PM
did we ever come to a final verdict on this?

Yes, it was discussed by the elders during the drafting of the REG and the sentence I quoted from the REG states our conclusion.

Harming is causing a negative effect. Negative effect is being targeted by a card of a different alignment. The REG clearly states that the underlying card is not targeted by the place ability. I realize that it's a little counter-intuitive, but I don't know how you could come to any other conclusion based on what's in the REG.

Tschow,

Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly

And why was it desirable to make such a counter-intuitive ruling? I fail to see the benefit to the game by making such an awkward rule?

Minister Polarius · « **Reply #28 on:** March 15, 2012, 05:07:06 PM »

I would assume the he does not support the ruling, but was outvoted by the majority of other elders. If does, in fact, think the rule is counter-intuitive but supports it nonetheless, he's probably a bit thick.

SirNobody · « **Reply #29 on:** March 15, 2012, 06:32:21 PM »

Hey,

Quote from: Korunks on March 15, 2012, 01:38:16 PM

And why was it desirable to make such a counter-intuitive ruling? I fail to see the benefit to the game by making such an awkward rule?

The alternatives are equally awkward and inconsistent. Place is an odd ability, so it wasn't going to work out clean regardless of how we did it. We opted for the option that is consistent but counter-intuitive rather than the option that was intuitive but inconsistent. Which I believe was the right way to go.

Tschow,

Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly

sepjazzwarrior · « **Reply #30 on:** March 15, 2012, 08:37:00 PM »

why is it that a placed card doesn't target the card under it? how can you place a card without first targeting the card you are gonna place it on?

Minister Polarius · « **Reply #31 on:** March 15, 2012, 10:27:43 PM »

Also, where is the inconsistency? I'd be fine with doing it this way if having placement target the card it's placed on would cause problems, can you give an example of a problem it would cause?

News:

Author Topic: destructive sin (Read 734 times)