Blue Moon Fans

Rules - Theoretic Question re Protected cards.
kilrah - Mo 11 Jul, 2005 10:51
Titel: Theoretic Question re Protected cards.
I have one question regarding the Protected icon. If I get the rule right a card with the icon cannot be discarded, ignored or have its values modified. But that's it.

Thus it IS possible to ignore the Icons of the card.

Would it be also possible to ignore the special text on a protected card using for example Laughing Gas? I would think that this should be possible with the same reasoning as with ignoring symbols. However there is currently no card with a special function that has the protected symbol, so the situation fortunately does not arise.
Dearlove - Mo 11 Jul, 2005 19:40
Titel: Re: Theoretic Question re Protected cards.
kilrah hat folgendes geschrieben:
However there is currently no card with a special function that has the protected symbol, so the situation fortunately does not arise.


And who thinks this is just a fortunate accident?
kilrah - Di 12 Jul, 2005 10:12
Titel:
LOL...
I never said it was an accident. But its good to know this was intentional as it implies that there is indeed a certain weakness in the protected rules as is.

However - you didn't answer the question?
Dearlove - Di 12 Jul, 2005 18:40
Titel:
kilrah hat folgendes geschrieben:
I never said it was an accident. But its good to know this was intentional as it implies that there is indeed a certain weakness in the protected rules as is.


I would disagree. Blue Moon is not open-ended, and there are several places where design decisions are incorporated in the card mix, not in rules. To take a specific case, the fact that there's no concept of "I'm not sure if I can match my opponent's power, let's start playing and see what happens." Add a character with "Now I may draw two cards." and that's broken. Which is why there is no such character. Similarly PROTECTED is just not an issue. There are other cases too.

There is an answer to your question, I just haven't checked what it is. I have put a similar case (PROTECTED versus "I must") in the FAQ and I may put this one in too at some point. Or I may not.

To pre-empt a potential issue: maybe someone has created a fan set where this is an issue. Sorry, you are on your own there (see the FAQ list). The only reason I even know what fan sets are called is them appearing at the top of this page (though actually the list isn't there today on this page I see).
kilrah - Mi 13 Jul, 2005 10:09
Titel:
Dearlove hat folgendes geschrieben:

To take a specific case, the fact that there's no concept of "I'm not sure if I can match my opponent's power, let's start playing and see what happens." Add a character with "Now I may draw two cards." and that's broken. Which is why there is no such character.


Interesting problem. I disagree however that this would brake the game. One could gamble, sure. But only at the risk of loosing 4:0 or 5:0, a case that IS covered in the rules, albeit more as a cheating prevention.

Dearlove hat folgendes geschrieben:

There is an answer to your question, I just haven't checked what it is. I have put a similar case (PROTECTED versus "I must") in the FAQ and I may put this one in too at some point. Or I may not.


Ok...

Dearlove hat folgendes geschrieben:

To pre-empt a potential issue: maybe someone has created a fan set where this is an issue. Sorry, you are on your own there (see the FAQ list). The only reason I even know what fan sets are called is them appearing at the top of this page (though actually the list isn't there today on this page I see).


I don't recall the case in a fan set yet either as we all kinda waited to see how 'expensive' the protected icon will be before using it. So yes - the question is partially to pre-empt future issues. However I also think that an answer would hep to understand some stuff. Like why does the Interference that can discard Supports NOT have the protected icon (people would have liked a version that can get rid of "Laughing Gas"). If the protected icon would not have helped the discussion is moot for example. If it would it is a matter design.

PS: It is deliberate that the names of the fan sets aren't there anymore. There are too many of both - the official and the fan ones - and too few space.
Ruwenzori - Mi 13 Jul, 2005 10:52
Titel:
Dearlove hat folgendes geschrieben:
The only reason I even know what fan sets are called is them appearing at the top of this page (though actually the list isn't there today on this page I see).

To see it now you have to click on the icon labeled "inoffizielle Völker" Wink
Dearlove - Mi 13 Jul, 2005 21:49
Titel:
kilrah hat folgendes geschrieben:
Interesting problem. I disagree however that this would brake the game. One could gamble, sure. But only at the risk of loosing 4:0 or 5:0, a case that IS covered in the rules, albeit more as a cheating prevention.


OK, let's say it breaks the design intent. If gambling were to be allowed, it should/would be a deliberate feature, not an accidental slippage in based on a misfeature of a card.
Ruwenzori - Sa 23 Jul, 2005 06:24
Titel:
Here is the answer from the new FAQ list:
Zitat:
Q: If you have an active Tittertweet [Flit 07] ("Your special power
texts are ignored, except on Flit character cards.") would this
ignore the special power text on one of my cards with the PROTECTED
icon?

A: First, this is entirely academic, because there are no cards with
both special power text and the PROTECTED icon. (Note that the card
mix is part of the design of Blue Moon, this is not the only question
like this, and there is no requirement for such a question to have an
answer.) However rulebook page 15, under PROTECTED: 'When these cards
are active in the combat or support areas, they are protected from
any opposing effects.' and that includes having their special power
text ignored, even though this effect is not explicitly listed under
'The cards cannot be ignored or discarded by the opponent, and their
values cannot be reduced by the opponent.'. Note that the apparent
exception to this rule, Mekarthas the Shrewd [Hoax 16, Aqua deck]
("Your icons are ignored, except STOP.") which, as noted in the
previous question, does affect cards with a PROTECTED icon, is
because, as noted, that card explicitly applies to icons, not
excluding PROTECTED.

kilrah - Sa 23 Jul, 2005 08:48
Titel:
Big thanks for answering that one. I don't particulary like the answer however, because I don't see why Mekarthas does work in that case when following the exact same course of reasoning (after all the Lauging Gas also doesn't exempt cards with Protected).
At this time I'd strongly suggest to add Mekarthas as exception into the rules of the protected symbol itself.
Dearlove - Sa 23 Jul, 2005 17:20
Titel:
kilrah hat folgendes geschrieben:
Big thanks for answering that one. I don't particulary like the answer however, because I don't see why Mekarthas does work in that case when following the exact same course of reasoning (after all the Lauging Gas also doesn't exempt cards with Protected).


But Merkarthas explicitly mentions icons, and explicitly doesn't exclude PROTECTED.
kilrah - So 24 Jul, 2005 09:54
Titel:
Dearlove hat folgendes geschrieben:

But Merkarthas explicitly mentions icons, and explicitly doesn't exclude PROTECTED.


Similar I could say Laughing Gas explicitely mentiones all special text and doesn't exclude PROTECTED,

Personally I don't see the big difference here.
Dearlove - So 24 Jul, 2005 18:45
Titel:
kilrah hat folgendes geschrieben:
Dearlove hat folgendes geschrieben:

But Merkarthas explicitly mentions icons, and explicitly doesn't exclude PROTECTED.


Similar I could say Laughing Gas explicitely mentiones all special text and doesn't exclude PROTECTED,

Personally I don't see the big difference here.


The difference is that PROTECTED is an icon, not special power text.
kilrah - Mo 25 Jul, 2005 11:18
Titel:
Yes, but why are Icons different in this context when compared to Special Text? Neither is specifically mentioned in the section about what is Protected. Just because the Protected Icon is an icon itself?
Geirröd - Mo 25 Jul, 2005 19:53
Titel:
@kilrah: Imagine there were an icon an a special power text like "This card can not be ignored."
Its special power text would be ignored by "laughing gas" as long as "laughing gas" does not explicitly exclude this card (or cards with special power texts like this in generell) but "Mekarthas the Shrewd" could not ignore its icon.
This is because "laughing gas" directly attacks the protecting part of the card (a special power text) as "Mekarthas the Shrewd" directly attacks the protecting part of the card with the PROTECTED-Icon.

Of course you could say, not excluding something does not explicitly include something, but this is another question, which would also apply to "Mekarthas the Shrewd".

Greetings Geirröd
Alle Zeiten sind GMT + 1 Stunde
Powered by phpBB2 Plus and Kostenloses Forum based on phpBB