Jump to content



Photo

Quill & Tankard Regulars - A new series of Rules-articles


  • Please log in to reply
43 replies to this topic

#1 WWDrakey

WWDrakey

    Member

  • Members
  • 434 posts

Posted 14 June 2012 - 07:03 PM

We've started a new rules-centric series of articles over at CardgameDB, titled Quill & Tankard Regulars.

The first issue can be found here.

Any feedback from Rules-board regulars and other rules morlocks is welcome.



#2 Khudzlin

Khudzlin

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,433 posts

Posted 14 June 2012 - 07:16 PM

Great job. Very detailed and humorous as well



#3 Ratatoskr

Ratatoskr

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,581 posts

Posted 22 June 2012 - 04:02 AM

The second issue is up.

 



#4 mdc273

mdc273

    Member

  • Members
  • 975 posts

Posted 22 June 2012 - 05:10 AM

I have one question with regards to what the first commenter said. I agree with him, which is what made me want to post.

It would appear that Aeron's passive cancels the kill effect rather than replaces it. If Aeron's kill effect did not cancel his death, I am under the impression he would not be allowed to become an agenda. Because the chain of events would go like this:

1) Aeron is going to be killed.

2) Aeron becomes Moribund:Dead

3) Aeron's passive attempts to change from Moribund:Dead to Moribund:Agenda and fails.

4) Aeron goes to the dead pile after the action window closes.

Unlike The Hound's passive which explicitly states that after he is killed it replaces the "go to dead pile" with "go to discard pile", Aeron simply replaces the kill with the "go to agenda" effect. I believe the action window would look more like this:

1) Aeron is going to be killed.

2) Aeron's passive initiates in the cancel window.

3) Aeron's passive successfully resolves and Aeron goes Moribund:Agenda.

4) The kill effect to change from Moribund:Agenda to Moribund:Dead and fails.

4a) If this were military claim, the claim on Aeron would fizzle.

5) Aeron becomes an agenda after the action window closes.

It could also just be a matter of language inconsistency, but that would be a subjective determination.

Do you see any reason it wouldn't cancel the kill? I know one person made the argument that something is killed by a kill effect, but in this case that doesn't happen. Aeron would be removed by his own passive and not a kill effect if my first scenario is correct. Not sure if KTom reads the comments on CardGameDB so I wanted to post here.



#5 Staton

Staton

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,270 posts

Posted 22 June 2012 - 05:26 AM

 The short answer is that the instead refers to him going to the dead pile, not him being killed. The faq states that a character is killed anytime it is forced from play by a kill effect. So if he dies to Valar he is being forced out of play by a kill effect and his ability is only changing the moribund destination from dead pile to agenda.



#6 Ratatoskr

Ratatoskr

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,581 posts

Posted 22 June 2012 - 05:44 AM

mdc273 said:

I have one question with regards to what the first commenter said. I agree with him, which is what made me want to post.

It would appear that Aeron's passive cancels the kill effect rather than replaces it. If Aeron's kill effect did not cancel his death, I am under the impression he would not be allowed to become an agenda. Because the chain of events would go like this:

1) Aeron is going to be killed.

2) Aeron becomes Moribund:Dead

3) Aeron's passive attempts to change from Moribund:Dead to Moribund:Agenda and fails.

4) Aeron goes to the dead pile after the action window closes.

Unlike The Hound's passive which explicitly states that after he is killed it replaces the "go to dead pile" with "go to discard pile", Aeron simply replaces the kill with the "go to agenda" effect. I believe the action window would look more like this:

1) Aeron is going to be killed.

2) Aeron's passive initiates in the cancel window.

3) Aeron's passive successfully resolves and Aeron goes Moribund:Agenda.

4) The kill effect to change from Moribund:Agenda to Moribund:Dead and fails.

4a) If this were military claim, the claim on Aeron would fizzle.

5) Aeron becomes an agenda after the action window closes.

It could also just be a matter of language inconsistency, but that would be a subjective determination.

Do you see any reason it wouldn't cancel the kill? I know one person made the argument that something is killed by a kill effect, but in this case that doesn't happen. Aeron would be removed by his own passive and not a kill effect if my first scenario is correct. Not sure if KTom reads the comments on CardGameDB so I wanted to post here.

You're making two mistakes here:

1) Aeron's effect cancels nothing. The word 'cancel' is not used, so it's not a cancel. Besides, all cancels are Responses, and Aeron's replacement effect is not a Response. Passives never happen in the cancel window, only cancel responses happen in the save/cancel window.

2) Aeron's effect is not a passive either, it's a replacement effect. Replacement effects are *not* passives (FAQ § 3.21 notwithstanding), they are constant effects. See here, reply#19 and 20. Constants do not happen in step 4 of the action window; rather, they apply instantly once their play restrictions are met.

That said, let me reiterate the answer I gave there:

You might think so, but no. The FAQ tells us (§4.5, p.10): "A card is “killed” if it is moved from play by a kill effect." Aeron is removed from play by a kill effect - all the replacement effect does is send him to a different out of play area than usual. He is still considered to have been killed though. The word "instead" is not shorthand for "instead of killing him". It is shorthand for "instead of placing him in the dead pile".



#7 Staton

Staton

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,270 posts

Posted 22 June 2012 - 05:47 AM

 I have a problem with #1 of your replay. My problem is named The Painted Table. :P



#8 ktom

ktom

    Member

  • Members
  • 7,725 posts

Posted 22 June 2012 - 05:52 AM

Since I seemed to be asked to weigh in on this…

mdc273 said:

Do you see any reason it wouldn't cancel the kill?
Yes. The word "cancel" does not appear in his text. Anywhere. If an effect does not say "cancel," it does not cancel anything. Plus, imagine that Aeron was killed by Valar. You cannot cancel an effect for just one target. Cancels are all or none. So, are you saying that if you play Valar and Aeron is out, the Valar is canceled for all other characters by Aeron becoming an agenda?

I'm not sure why you think Aeron is not a replacement effect. He uses the word "instead," which is the most obvious, time-tested, and clear indication that the effect is replacing something.

mdc273 said:

I know one person made the argument that something is killed by a kill effect, but in this case that doesn't happen. Aeron would be removed by his own passive and not a kill effect if my first scenario is correct.
Aeron is not removed by his own replacement effect. He is removed by the killing effect that attempts to remove him from play. It's simply what you do with him "instead" when he is killed that changes.

For example, you can save him from being killed so that the replacement effect never happens in the first place, so there must be a kill effect trying to kill him, right? (If he worked as a cancel, you'd never get the chance to save him from being killed because his "passive cancel" would automatically kick in before your triggered save. So the "cancel" interpretation would mean he "cannot be saved." Ever.) Also, you would RESPOND to the Aeron being killed, even though he ends up on your House card as an agenda. That's because it was the kill effect - not his own "instead" ability - that removed him from play. This is the same sort of thing that says when you discard The Darkstar to pay the cost of your Maester of the Sun, his is still considered discarded (and the cost successfully paid) even though he does not end up in your discard pile.

The misconception - and I admit that it is encouraged by the wording for replacement effects in the FAQ - is that replacement effects are passive effects. They are not. They are "always on" constant effects that kick in when whatever they are replacing tries to resolve. The "If Aeron would be killed…" wording (as opposed to an "after Aeron is killed…" or "when Aeron would be killed…" wording) is the indication of this. Plus, thing of Pyat Pree - if his replacement of claim happened as a passive ability, it would not activate until after claim was already settled. The only way that he can be applied before claim is settled (since he also does not use the words "cancel" or "save" - plus, the claim effect itself still resolves) is for his effect to be constantly checking if he is the only attacking character when a challenge is won, redefining how claim is resolved (not if it resolves) depending on the answer.

This is what happens with Aeron (and all other character-agendas):

  1. Kill effect is initiated; Aeron is going to die
  2. Save/cancel opportunity to the killing effect (you can try to save Aeron with Risen from the Sea, for example)
  3. Kill effect resolves; this is the first time you know for sure that Aeron "would be killed" (it was all just a probability before now)
  4. As the resolving "kill" effect tries to make him "moribund:dead pile", his (replacement) effect kicks in and makes him "moribund:House-card-as-agenda" instead; he was still "killed," but the killing effect resulted in something more "unusual" than sending the character to the dead pile
  5. Move on to passives for characters (including Aeron) being killed
  6. Move on to Responses for characters (including Aeron) being killed

 

So, end result: Aeron is a replacement effect that is applied constantly when an effect tries to send him to the dead pile as a result of being killed (assuming there is no Agenda on the controller's House card when he is killed).

mdc273 said:

Not sure if KTom reads the comments on CardGameDB so I wanted to post here.
He does not. But then, I've never had time to listen to an AGoT fan podcast, either.



#9 mdc273

mdc273

    Member

  • Members
  • 975 posts

Posted 22 June 2012 - 06:33 AM

So for all intents and purposes, any card that says "…would be killed, instead…" the part of the would be killed effect being replaced is the framework action that would make the card Moribund:Dead?

This would mean that The Hound's wording "If The Hound is killed, place him in your discard pile instead of your dead pile." is just an outdated way of saying "If The Hound would be killed, instead discard him" and The Hound would still be considered killed under this new text?

And Staton brings up an interesting alternate question for The Painted Table. Is The Painted Table's effect a passive or is it a constant effect that has a duration which ends after it cancels an effect?



#10 Bomb

Bomb

    Cool Person Club

  • Members
  • 1,779 posts

Posted 22 June 2012 - 06:52 AM

River Blockade is another constant cancel effect that is not a Response.

Constant cancel effects like this and Painted Table just instantly cancel the effect as soon as it is triggered.  It doesn't need to be a Response.  Just like any other constant ability that has a condition met.  Similar to this constant ability - "Guard at Riverrun gets +1 STR while defending during a MIL challenge." 



#11 ktom

ktom

    Member

  • Members
  • 7,725 posts

Posted 22 June 2012 - 07:12 AM

mdc273 said:

So for all intents and purposes, any card that says "…would be killed, instead…" the part of the would be killed effect being replaced is the framework action that would make the card Moribund:Dead?

Not the framework action. If killed by claim, claim still happens. The only thing that changes is what yo do with the card when it dies. It is the disposition of the card that changes. So when Aeron "would be killed, instead of the kill effect making him "moribund:dead pile," it makes him "moribund:agenda." It is not the action that is replaced, it is the final moribund state that is replaced.

 

The kill effect still resolves, it just resolves in a different way than the "default" kill effect.

mdc273 said:

This would mean that The Hound's wording "If The Hound is killed, place him in your discard pile instead of your dead pile." is just an outdated way of saying "If The Hound would be killed, instead discard him" and The Hound would still be considered killed under this new text?

Well, I would argue that The Hound has the more correct, better wording and that he isn't outdated so much as the character-agendas are poorly worded, but yeah, that's the gist of it. The Hound is still killed, and is still considered "killed" and you would Respond to him being killed, but when he is killed, he enters a "moribund:discard" state instead of the default "moribund:dead" state.

 

mdc273 said:

And Staton brings up an interesting alternate question for The Painted Table. Is The Painted Table's effect a passive or is it a constant effect that has a duration which ends after it cancels an effect?

Well, maybe not because The Painted Table only cancels triggered effects, so I'm not sure what relation it had to the Aeron discussion (since Aeron is not a cancel, nor is he triggered)….

However, the Painted Table creates a lasting effect that passively initiates when the "next" triggered effect that round initiates and cancels that effect. Once it does that, no other effect will match its "next" play restriction. The lasting effect expires at the end of the phase, whether a "next" effect is triggered or not. The point to keep in mind is that the word "cancel" is specifically used. So while "passively initiated cancels" exist, Aeron is not one of them because they still must contain the word "cancel" in the effect - and Aeron does not.

It does get a little confusing because, while rare, there are lasting/continuous effect that have a separate (passive) point of initiation that comes when certain conditions are met. The Painted Table's cancel is no different than the "if you win the challenge, draw cards" of something like Insidious Ways or Longship Iron Victory (just with "cancel" timing rather than standard passive effect timing).



#12 Amuk

Amuk

    Member

  • Members
  • 267 posts

Posted 22 June 2012 - 08:27 AM

ktom said:

Not sure if KTom reads the comments on CardGameDB so I wanted to post here.

He does not.

 

Bob Dole approves this message.


Cordially,

Amuk

 

"Life is a tragedy for those who feel & a comedy for those who think." - Jean de la Bruyère


#13 Ratatoskr

Ratatoskr

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,581 posts

Posted 22 June 2012 - 08:45 AM

ktom said:

Well, maybe not because The Painted Table only cancels triggered effects, so I'm not sure what relation it had to the Aeron discussion (since Aeron is not a cancel, nor is he triggered)….

However, the Painted Table creates a lasting effect that passively initiates when the "next" triggered effect that round initiates and cancels that effect. Once it does that, no other effect will match its "next" play restriction. The lasting effect expires at the end of the phase, whether a "next" effect is triggered or not. The point to keep in mind is that the word "cancel" is specifically used. So while "passively initiated cancels" exist, Aeron is not one of them because they still must contain the word "cancel" in the effect - and Aeron does not.

It does get a little confusing because, while rare, there are lasting/continuous effect that have a separate (passive) point of initiation that comes when certain conditions are met. The Painted Table's cancel is no different than the "if you win the challenge, draw cards" of something like Insidious Ways or Longship Iron Victory (just with "cancel" timing rather than standard passive effect timing).

The Painted Table came up because of my misguided assertion that all cancels are responses. Thanks to Staton and Bomb for correcting me - I really had forgotten River Blockade and Painted Table.

That said, Painted Table and River Blockade leave me a bit baffled. I don't quite know how to fit them into the timing structure of the game. Ktom seems to suggest that they are effects that happen passively during step 2 of the Action Window? That would mean that they happen after regular save/cancel responses? Or is Bomb right and River Blockade is a conditional constant effect that initiates once the condition "first location effect of the round is triggered" is met? But can it really be a constant? I would think that a cancel would require a point of initiation, which a constant effect by definition has not - right?



#14 Bomb

Bomb

    Cool Person Club

  • Members
  • 1,779 posts

Posted 22 June 2012 - 09:12 AM

Ratatoskr said:

Or is Bomb right and River Blockade is a conditional constant effect that initiates once the condition "first location effect of the round is triggered" is met? But can it really be a constant? I would think that a cancel would require a point of initiation, which a constant effect by definition has not - right?

Honestly, I don't really know how these types of things work because there are some conditional constant effects that have what appears to be points of initiation once certain conditions are met.  That is why I mentioned the Guard at Riverrun because clearly the +1 STR boost happens once he is defending in a MIL challenge, but the term "while" in the effect indicates that it is constant with a condition.  Just like the effects that are templated with "during the challenges phase…". 

I honestly don't know for sure.



#15 ktom

ktom

    Member

  • Members
  • 7,725 posts

Posted 22 June 2012 - 09:57 AM

Bomb said:

Honestly, I don't really know how these types of things work because there are some conditional constant effects that have what appears to be points of initiation once certain conditions are met.
Conditional constants (like "get +1 while standing" or "if you win a challenge in which this character attacked alone, instead of normal claim effects….") are a little confusing because the moment that the condition is met looks like a point of initiation. But it isn't.

Effectively, what is going on with conditional constants is that you have something that says "if X is true, Y is also true." There is no "initiation" to truth. It either is, or it isn't. So while there is a moment when X becomes true (making Y become true as well), you can't say that the truth "initiated" at that moment. It simply becomes an applicable factor to the environment.

It's the reverse of, but no different than, the loss of a +X STR modifier. Say you have a character that gets +2 STR while defending. When the challenge is over and the character stops defending, he just loses his +2 STR, right? Nothing "initiated" to take away his STR, it just stopped being true/applicable without a STR reduction going through the initiate-resolve process. Same thing happens when he starts defending too. His +2 STR just starts being true/applicable without a STR increase going through the initiate-resolve process.

 

But there is a whole other class of effects - not formally named or described in the FAQ (any more than "conditional constants" are). There are lasting effects that have a "delayed passive initiation." The most famous one from CCG days was "Moment of Glory" (which gave a participating character +3 STR, then chose and killed a character when the challenge resolved; it became "famous" in its time because that delayed initiation means that the process created by a triggered event effect actually could kill characters that were immune to events and/or triggered effects), but there are plenty of others. Longship Iron Victory and Insidious Ways, as mentioned above, are examples. You trigger the effect to give +2 and create a lasting effect that, if certain criteria are met, will initiate at a later time to allow you to draw a card (or cards). It is clear that these sort of effects are not "conditional constants" the way that "gets +2 STR while defending" is because when the condition is met (winning the challenge), the "draw" effect does go through an initiate-resolve process. Otherwise, if the "draw" portion was simply "true," you'd never be done drawing.

(But the Draw is passive because if you win that challenge, you don't get to choose whether or not you draw. You have to do it - unless something else, like the draw cap, prevents you.)

Ratatoskr said:

Ktom seems to suggest that they are effects that happen passively during step 2 of the Action Window? That would mean that they happen after regular save/cancel responses? Or is Bomb right and River Blockade is a conditional constant effect that initiates once the condition "first location effect of the round is triggered" is met? But can it really be a constant? I would think that a cancel would require a point of initiation, which a constant effect by definition has not - right?
Cancels require a point of initiation to interrupt, and must themselves initiate to accomplish that interrupting, but their own point of initiation can be passive. Passive cancels are rare, but they do have a long precedent in the CCG, going all the way back to "year 1" and the plot card "Outmaneuver," which was a plot that canceled the "when revealed" text of other plots.

When you really look at it, The Painted Table looks a lot like Longship Iron Victory. Both kneel to activate a triggered response and (after having 1 immediate effect in the case of LIV) create a lasting effect that says if something happens later in the phase (an effect being triggered for TPT, you winning a challenge for LIV), something else must happen as a result (the effect is canceled for TPT, a card is drawn for LIV). River Blockade is the same, except that its lasting effect is created by a constant effect rather than a triggered effect. When you look at things that way, I think it is pretty clear that The Painted Table and River Blockade are part of this "delayed passive initiation" class of effects.

These passive initiations cancels would therefore happen at the first opportunity for a cancel to initiate and, because what must initiate is always dealt with before what might initiate in this game, TPT and RB will initiate and cancel what they are trying to cancel before regular save/cancel responses (which are always optional).



#16 Staton

Staton

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,270 posts

Posted 22 June 2012 - 10:07 AM

ktom said:

There is no "initiation" to truth.

Proof that Ktom is the Confucius of AGoT.



#17 Ratatoskr

Ratatoskr

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,581 posts

Posted 28 June 2012 - 11:46 PM

Issue 3 is up. We tackle TftE.



#18 Ratatoskr

Ratatoskr

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,581 posts

Posted 05 July 2012 - 08:05 PM

Issue 4 is up. There's something about Meera.



#19 mdc273

mdc273

    Member

  • Members
  • 975 posts

Posted 06 July 2012 - 08:56 AM

When was it ruled that a triggered effect can become a triggered ability? That's a significant precedent and I just want to verify that's what you're saying is being established here. (This means the same thing would be true of any card being forced out of shadows by its own ability I believe)

i. e. Shadows Meera creates a triggered effect (not triggered ability) that has a then effect as part of the triggered effect. Your article seems to say that the Then effect is transformed from a Triggered Effect to a Character Ability. 

My interpretation has always been that the entire effect was generated before Meera became a character and therefore could never be considered a character ability. The only effect Meera has on the Then is that the triggered effect after the Then is dependent upon Shadows Meera Reed successfully becoming Character Meera Reed.

I'd go find where I originally posted this to try and remember how this discussion went, but I hate the search function on this forum.

For reference from the article:

"Her effect is twofold. The 'pay 1 gold to bring Meera out of Shadows' part is triggered from out of play, so it's a triggered effect, not a triggered ability. The part after the Then, however, can only happen if the part before it resolved fully (that's how Then-effects work, you remember that from last week's column). In Meera's case, that means that by the time the "blank a card or two" part of her effect happens, she is in play. Ergo this part of the effect is an ability, and because Meera is a character, it's a character ability."



#20 ktom

ktom

    Member

  • Members
  • 7,725 posts

Posted 06 July 2012 - 09:41 AM

mdc273 said:

When was it ruled that a triggered effect can become a triggered ability? That's a significant precedent and I just want to verify that's what you're saying is being established here. (This means the same thing would be true of any card being forced out of shadows by its own ability I believe)
Don't add the word "triggered" into that bit about "ability," but this is, effectively, what FFG ruled months ago when the issue first came up.

mdc273 said:

"Her effect is twofold. The 'pay 1 gold to bring Meera out of Shadows' part is triggered from out of play, so it's a triggered effect, not a triggered ability. The part after the Then, however, can only happen if the part before it resolved fully (that's how Then-effects work, you remember that from last week's column). In Meera's case, that means that by the time the "blank a card or two" part of her effect happens, she is in play. Ergo this part of the effect is an ability, and because Meera is a character, it's a character ability."
While kind of loose in some important terminology, the analysis is essentially correct. It all comes down to the "then" effect. (So don't try to apply anything in Meera to any situation without a "then" effect conditioned upon the same card coming into play as part of the "pre-then" effect. The explanation on Meera is a ruling with very narrow applicability.)

The key thing to remember here is that the "then" part of an effect has a separate, though dependent, initiation and resolution from the "pre-then" part of the same effect. We know it has a separate resolution because the part before the "then" must be complete before the part after the "then" becomes possible. And we know the part after the "then" has a separate initiation because targets are chosen (Meera Reed), costs are paid (Maester Wendamyr), and save-but-not-cancel opportunities created (Sorrowful Man) happen independently of triggering the "main" effect.

What that means is that the "then choose and blank" part of Meera's triggered effect is initiated while the card is in play. When a card is in play for the initiation of its effect, it is also termed an "ability."

There is no "transformation" from effect to ability for Meera. The whole of the effect is still a triggered (character) effect. But the part that initiates while she is in play also meets all of the definitions for a character ability - and is therefore treated as such.

This sounds a lot more complicated than it really it because the only real, practical implication is that Meera's blanking effect cannot target or affect cards that are immune to character abilities. Other than that, everything is the same. Cards that are immune to triggered effects are still immune to her blanking ability. You still need a "cancel a triggered effect," not a "cancel a triggered ability" card to stop her from coming out of Shadows. Etc., etc., etc. 

mdc273 said:

i. e. Shadows Meera creates a triggered effect (not triggered ability) that has a then effect as part of the triggered effect. Your article seems to say that the Then effect is transformed from a Triggered Effect to a Character Ability.
Again, not transformed. She is still a "triggered effect." But the blanking/then portion of her effect also meets the definition of "character ability" - although not a "triggered character ability" because there is no independent choice for its initiation; the blanking effect has to happen once she is successfully brought into play.

mdc273 said:

My interpretation has always been that the entire effect was generated before Meera became a character and therefore could never be considered a character ability. The only effect Meera has on the Then is that the triggered effect after the Then is dependent upon Shadows Meera Reed successfully becoming Character Meera Reed.
This is, ultimately, correct. It just is not complete because of the separate initiation of the dependent-then effect. 

 

So - bottom line: The "then" portion of Meera initiates while she is in play, even though it was triggered while she was not in play. Because the blanking portion of the triggered effect initiates while she is in play, it cannot affect cards that are "immune to character abilities" any more than it can affect cards that are "immune to triggered effects. Or, more to the point, Meera cannot blank The High Septon or The Red Viper. 






© 2013 Fantasy Flight Publishing, Inc. Fantasy Flight Games and the FFG logo are ® of Fantasy Flight Publishing, Inc.  All rights reserved.
Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Contact | User Support | Rules Questions | Help | RSS