Jump to content



Photo

Schrödinger's Castle Battlements


  • Please log in to reply
38 replies to this topic

#1 WWDrakey

WWDrakey

    Member

  • Members
  • 434 posts

Posted 17 May 2012 - 10:19 PM

 Castle Battlements

Grants immunity to non-plot card effects. 

The effect granting the immunity is a non-plot card effect. 

~ Was misprinted and should be called Schrödinger's Castle Battlements?

~~ Toss a coin for every effect?



#2 sabrefox

sabrefox

    Member

  • Members
  • 105 posts

Posted 17 May 2012 - 11:59 PM

The FAQ states: (3.17) Self-Immunity - A card with immunity is not immune to its own abilities.



#3 WWDrakey

WWDrakey

    Member

  • Members
  • 434 posts

Posted 18 May 2012 - 12:07 AM

sabrefox said:

The FAQ states: (3.17) Self-Immunity - A card with immunity is not immune to its own abilities.

Yep. And the card with immunity in this case is the location, no? So it is not immune to its own abilities. How does this then imply that it would not be immune to another card (Castle Battlements in this case)?



#4 sabrefox

sabrefox

    Member

  • Members
  • 105 posts

Posted 18 May 2012 - 12:42 AM

Ah, too early - my brain didn't pick up on that

It would appear that FAQ (3.18) doesn't provide any clarity here either: "Timing of Immunity - Immunity is only considered when a triggered effect (or a passive ability) first resolves. A card cannot gain immunity to a triggered effect (or a passive ability) with a lasting duration once that effect has first resolved."

Since the immunity is provided by the attachment's constant ability, it has no point of resolution and thus cannt be cancelled.  Thus the card is now immune to the effect that is providing it immunity.   Nice pickup on that circular reference.

It would seem easy enough to fix by making the immunity resolve as a passive effect instead - "Once in play, attached location is immune…" or something.  That would be allowed under the FAQ section above.



#5 ktom

ktom

    Member

  • Members
  • 7,654 posts

Posted 18 May 2012 - 01:50 AM

sabrefox said:

It would seem easy enough to fix by making the immunity resolve as a passive effect instead - "Once in play, attached location is immune…" or something.  That would be allowed under the FAQ section above.
Nope. So long as you use an "is immune" wording, you are dealing with a constant effect, which creates the circular reasoning of "gains immunity, is immune to what is giving it immunity and so loses the immunity, no longer immune so regains the immunity, etc."

What you have here is an endless loop. 



#6 Ratatoskr

Ratatoskr

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,565 posts

Posted 18 May 2012 - 02:04 AM

ktom said:

 

What you have here is an endless loop. 

So, what should be done about it in your opinion? Wait for an erratum? If you were judging at an event, and this card was played, un-errata'd, how would you decide?

I guess one could always point to the FAQ, page 14: "If, at any time, two (or more) lasting effects create an endless loop that cannot successfully resolve itself, resolve the loop as if neither lasting affect were occurring" and rule that the immunity-granting effect of the card is in fact nullified (I'm aware that this is not an endless loop created by two lasting effects, but raher one constant effect cancelling itself out, but I guess the FAQ passage quoted is the closest thing we have to a ruling, right?)



#7 WWDrakey

WWDrakey

    Member

  • Members
  • 434 posts

Posted 18 May 2012 - 02:12 AM

Ratatoskr said:

ktom said:

 

 

What you have here is an endless loop. 

 

 

So, what should be done about it in your opinion? Wait for an erratum? If you were judging at an event, and this card was played, un-errata'd, how would you decide?

I guess one could always point to the FAQ, page 14: "If, at any time, two (or more) lasting effects create an endless loop that cannot successfully resolve itself, resolve the loop as if neither lasting affect were occurring" and rule that the immunity-granting effect of the card is in fact nullified (I'm aware that this is not an endless loop created by two lasting effects, but raher one constant effect cancelling itself out, but I guess the FAQ passage quoted is the closest thing we have to a ruling, right?)

Well… I would actually argue that there are two lasting effects here. Albeit one of them is being created by the other one. So, I can see some validity in arguing that solution.

~ Of course, I'd rather go with the Quantum Mechanical solution here and treat this as a superposition of two quantum states that collapses into one state when measured. Hence my coin flip argument. But then, I used to be a physicist… ;)



#8 Ratatoskr

Ratatoskr

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,565 posts

Posted 18 May 2012 - 02:22 AM

WWDrakey said:

~ Of course, I'd rather go with the Quantum Mechanical solution here and treat this as a superposition of two quantum states that collapses into one state when measured. Hence my coin flip argument. But then, I used to be a physicist… ;)

~Huh. I know the words, but still I don't understand what you're saying. But then, concerning physics, I'm with Macbeth: "Throw physic to the dogs, I'll none of it" (V.III)*.

 

 

*Yeah, I know he meant medicine, so sue me.



#9 sabrefox

sabrefox

    Member

  • Members
  • 105 posts

Posted 18 May 2012 - 02:50 AM

Edited to remove post.  There is nothing to see here but my own stupidity. ;)



#10 Bomb

Bomb

    Cool Person Club

  • Members
  • 1,766 posts

Posted 18 May 2012 - 03:11 AM

Why is this being over-thought?  Obviously the immunity text on the card would be worthless if it could never be applied.  Clearly the intent of the attachment is not to be immune to itself and to be immune to all other non-plot card effects.  Is there a FAQ entry for constantly applied/gained immunities not being immune to it's source?

The best text would be "Attached location is immune to all non-plot card effects except for Castle Battlements." where it is self-referential.

I understand there is always that one person in a tournament setting that might be a **** about it and that is why there is this discussion.  Unsuspecting players will play this card not considering that there is a hole in its own ability because it's not defined in the rules as an immunity not being immune to the source of the immunity.  It's probably assumed to be not immune to it's the origin of the immunity, but it's unfortunately not defined in the FAQ as such…

Isn't there an old attachment out there that has "Attached character gains: "No attachments.""?



#11 sabrefox

sabrefox

    Member

  • Members
  • 105 posts

Posted 18 May 2012 - 03:25 AM

No one questions the intent of the card, but as noted, the current rules surounding immunity don't fit this card as written, especially the sectionsabout Self-Immunity and Scope of Immunity. I'd agree with your simple fix though.  Nice and simple.

 

Bomb said:

 

Isn't there an old attachment out there that has "Attached character gains: "No attachments.""?

 

 

The new Bastard attachment comes close to this, "After you play Bastard from your hand, discard all other attachments on attached character. Attached character gains the Bastard trait, loses a P icon, and cannot have attachments played on it." The first statement is a passive effect to clear the card of existing attachments, then the second is a constant effect that doesn't affect the Bastard card becuase it is already played and attached.
 



#12 ktom

ktom

    Member

  • Members
  • 7,654 posts

Posted 18 May 2012 - 04:16 AM

If I were judging, I'd argue that the absence of the word "other" (so that the card read "…immune to other non-plot…" is a clear mistake and exercise my power as a TO to say the immunity to everything other than the Battlements stands. (While waiting for official errata.)

Usually, my answer is "if I didn't know about it before the event, you play it as written rather than as assumed, then I'll send it to FFG and issue a house rule if necessary until the errata comes." But in this case, there is no real "as written" resolution, making it a clear mistake.

In the end, though, the text as written cancels itself out and should be errata'd.



#13 Slothgodfather

Slothgodfather

    Member

  • Members
  • 368 posts

Posted 18 May 2012 - 04:54 AM

If it was worded as a "gained" keyword, then under the FAQ of not being immune to itself, it would work as "intended' correct?



#14 radiskull

radiskull

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,360 posts

Posted 18 May 2012 - 05:05 AM

Slothgodfather said:

If it was worded as a "gained" keyword, then under the FAQ of not being immune to itself, it would work as "intended' correct?

Except that it would become immune to the source of the gained text, thus removing the gained text, and so on ad infinitum.



#15 ktom

ktom

    Member

  • Members
  • 7,654 posts

Posted 18 May 2012 - 05:12 AM

Further, the "gained" keyword is still not considered a card ability, and the "cannot be immune to itself" rule is that cards cannot be immune to their own abilities.

To do what you are suggesting, Sloth, the attachment would need to be a triggered or passive effect. Essentially, it would need to read something like, "Response: After Castle Battlements is attached to a location, choose that location. It gains immunity to non-plot card effects."

At that point, the immunity is coming from a lasting effect that does not depend on the continued activity of the attachment's text, instead of a constant effect that does need to attachment text to be active.



#16 sabrefox

sabrefox

    Member

  • Members
  • 105 posts

Posted 18 May 2012 - 05:45 AM

OK, now I'm really confused…isn't this what I suggested above (albiet, the wording was slightly different) and told that immunity is a constant effect?  After thinking about it, I agree, since if immunity was a passive effect, it wouldn't resolve until the effect it should protect against has already resolved.  

Immunity being a constant effect is the trouble, not the specifics of where the immunity text originated from, right?



#17 KristoffStark

KristoffStark

    Member

  • Members
  • 529 posts

Posted 18 May 2012 - 05:49 AM

ktom said:

If I were judging, I'd argue that the absence of the word "other" (so that the card read "…immune to other non-plot…" is a clear mistake and exercise my power as a TO to say the immunity to everything other than the Battlements stands. (While waiting for official errata.)

Usually, my answer is "if I didn't know about it before the event, you play it as written rather than as assumed, then I'll send it to FFG and issue a house rule if necessary until the errata comes." But in this case, there is no real "as written" resolution, making it a clear mistake.

In the end, though, the text as written cancels itself out and should be errata'd.

I whole-heartedly agree.



#18 Slothgodfather

Slothgodfather

    Member

  • Members
  • 368 posts

Posted 18 May 2012 - 05:55 AM

sabrefox said:


OK, now I'm really confused…isn't this what I suggested above (albiet, the wording was slightly different) and told that immunity is a constant effect?  After thinking about it, I agree, since if immunity was a passive effect, it wouldn't resolve until the effect it should protect against has already resolved. 

Immunity being a constant effect is the trouble, not the specifics of where the immunity text originated from, right?
 


The part that it doesn't specify that it's not immune to the attachment is the trouble.  As another possible fix to the text it could say "oppenent's non-plot cards" and then all is right with the world again.  But then again, that is a stretch into what the card is "intended" to do.
 
 

As a side note, this thread's subject title is extremely fitting.  Did anyone else imagine Shedlon explaining the concept to Penny?
 

 



#19 sabrefox

sabrefox

    Member

  • Members
  • 105 posts

Posted 18 May 2012 - 06:06 AM

Having pursued a Physics degree myself in the past, I LOVE the reference, and actually understand, to some degree, the idea of "superposition" that was mentioned earlier.  I might not put the card in my deck if it was that unreliable, but I agree it is currently the Schrodinger's Cat of AGoT. :)



#20 KristoffStark

KristoffStark

    Member

  • Members
  • 529 posts

Posted 18 May 2012 - 06:12 AM

The difference being that when you open the box, you discover if Schrodinger's Cat is actually alive or dead (or one could see it as the act of opening the box defining the cat one way or the other).

We need an errata to open this box, and define the Battlements.






© 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