Can Nurtured by the Crone cancel Meeral's 'Any Phase' ability?

[Vaapad 7]

Assuming it's not winter and meera tries to blank a unique character/location. Her ability is a triggered effect that chooses a single unique char/loc as its only target ... But that targeting is only part of the "then"; the initiating step of the triggered effect didn't target anything. Really not sure on this one, and it left Israril scratching his head a little bit as well.

[ktom 598]

This left Istaril scratching his head? Shame on him. 

 

Anything after the "then" does not happen until after the part before the "then" resolves in Step 3. Said another way, Meera cannot choose a target for the "then, blank" part of her effect until Step 3. That means that in Step 2 of triggering Meera's ability and bringing her out of Shadows, no target has been chosen and thus the play restrictions for Nurtured by the Crone have not been met.

 

Further, once the target has been chosen (after Meera successfully comes out of Shadows) and the "then" part of her effect initiates, you can't cancel the effect as a "triggered effect" because part of the effect that was triggered (Meera's Response) has already resolved, making it too late to cancel. (That part is even in the FAQ: "(3.40) Saving from "Then" Effects -  Any 'Then' effect that would remove a character from play creates a special opportunity for players to play 'save' responses to the terminal 'Then' effect. Only save responses can be played during this special opportunity.)

[Vaapad 7]

That makes sense. Thanks Ktom!

[Bomb 66]

Sounds like Istaril is losing his touch!

[-Istaril 157]

 and it left Israril scratching his head

 

Sounds like a cheap imitation knock-off. Should have paid for the real deal!

[Vaapad 7]

Relatedly: can Meera blank a character that is immune to triggered effects (say from Meereen)? I would think not, as the "then" is still part of a triggered effect, but I supose I'm not certain, bexause the way you described the timing made it sound like a passive effect that follows the trigger.

Edited March 19, 2015 by Vaapad

[Bomb 66]

Relatedly: can Meera blank a character that is immune to triggered effects (say from Meereen)? I would think not, as the "then" is still part of a triggered effect, but I supose I'm not certain, bexause the way you described the timing made it sound like a passive effect that follows the trigger.

 

No she cannot blank a character that is immune to triggered effects.  To help illustrate, a character that is immune to triggered effects is still immune to lasting effects created by a triggered effect even though some lasting effects are affecting characters as constant effects or have a point of initiation where the effect kicks in passively later on in a phase. 

 

In other words, if the effect only exists because it originated from a triggered effect, it will not affect cards that are "immune to triggered effects".  The effect must originate from a constant or passive effect in order for that card to be affected.

Edited March 23, 2015 by Bomb

[MQSi 0]

  To help illustrate, a character that is immune to triggered effects are still immune to lasting effects created by a triggered effect even though some lasting effects are affecting characters as constant effects or have a point of initiation where the effect kicks in passively later on in a phase. 

 

In other words, if the effect only exists because it originated from a triggered effect, it will not affect cards that are "immune to triggered effects".  The effect must originate from a constant or passive effect in order for that card to be affected.

 

How does this work if a character gains "immune to triggered efffects"? Lets say i have coreset drogon and my opponent uses bitterbridge on him. Now i declare drogon as an attacker and target him with Mereen. Does the lasting effect of Bitterbridge still apply?

[ktom 598]

Your example doesn't make any sense to me. At what point does a character gain "immune to triggered effects"?

 

Bitterbridge: "Any Phase: Kneel Bitterbridge to choose a character. Until the end of the phase, that character cannot trigger its abilities."

Drogon: "Any Phase: Pay 2 gold to choose a character. Until the end of the phase,that character gets -1 STR and is killed if its STR is 0. (Limit once per phase.)"

 

Where does "immune to triggered effects" come into this at all?

 

Or were there two separate questions there?

1. "How does this work if a character gains 'immune to triggered effects'?"

2. Bitterbridge/Drogon situation.

 

If they are two separate questions - 

1. Whether "immune to triggered effects" is printed or gained doesn't make any difference, so long as it is active when Meera is triggered. If it is, the immunity will protect from Meera.

2. Meera blanking Drogon doesn't have anything to do with Bitterbridge. She cannot "retroactively" turn off Bitterbridge's effect by blanking Drogon. And even if she did, wouldn't blanking his text (so he can't access his ability) do pretty much the same thing as Bitterbridge (which says he can't trigger the ability)? Further, once Bitterbridge is triggered and resolves on Drogon, it's lasting effect is there fore the duration, no matter what happens to either card.

[MQSi 0]

Maybe i should have started a new topic since my question doesnt relate to meera but meereen. But the statement of Bomb lead me to that question:

 

The situation is as follows:

Player A controls Drogon and Meereen (Challenges: Kneel Mereen to choose 1 participating Dragon character you control. Until the end of the phase, that character gains "Immune to opponents' trigggered effects." If you win the challenge draw 1 card for each participating Dragon character you control.)

Player B controls Bitterbridge.

 

1. Player B uses Bitterbridge and targets Drogon. So there is a lasting effect resulting from a triggered effect.

2. Player A declares drogon as attacker and uses Meereen to give Drogon "immune to opponents triggered effects"

 

The question is: Does that mean that Drogon is now immune to the lasting effect of Bitterbridge and can now trigger his ability?

[-Istaril 157]

No. Immunity gained after-the-fact does not 'clear' existing lasting effects, it only prevents the application of new effects.

[ktom 598]

Sorry. I missed the transition to "Meereen" in the earlier post.

 

As Istaril says, you cannot be "retroactively" immune to an effect once it has resolved. The rules reference for this is in the FAQ:

 

"(3.19) 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."

[MQSi 0]

Sry for the confusion and thanks for the answer!

 

I should read the FAQ more carefully

[Vaapad 7]

By the same reasoning as my original question, I assume we think that Lysa Arryn cannot cancel Meera's Any Phase ability?

[ktom 598]

Lysa can cancel Meera.

 

Lysa cancels triggered effects that have the words "plot" or "non-plot" anywhere in its text. Because of this "anywhere in its text" restriction, Lysa looks at the entire text of all effects that share the same trigger. If "plot" or "non-plot" appears anywhere in the effects that come from that trigger, that trigger can be canceled. 

 

So, it doesn't matter that "non-plot" doesn't appear until the "then" part of Meera's effect. The parts before and after the "then" share the same trigger, so the triggered effect (as a whole) uses the word "non-plot," Lysa's play restrictions are met, and she can cancel Meera. 

 

Don't confuse the fact that Lysa cannot cancel Meera's Response effect (a separate effect with its own trigger) with not being able to cancel her Any Phase effect (two separate effects that share the same trigger). Also, note that the difference between Lysa and Nurtured by the Crone is that Lysa looks at the text of the effect (which doesn't depend on how the effect initiates to check the play restrictions) and NbtC looks at which target is actually chosen when the effect is initiated (which cannot be done until the target is actually chosen - something that does not happen with the original trigger for a "then" effect).

 

Of course, it's important to recognize that Lysa's cancel is used to cancel the triggered effect as a whole. That means she is used when cancels to Meera's "Any Phase" trigger would be used, canceling the whole thing, and leaving Meera in shadows. 

 

Hope all of that makes sense.

Edited May 22, 2015 by ktom

[Grimwalker 646]

I swear to god a good *quarter* of the FAQ and the need to split hairs over triggered and targeted and type of ability comes from the weird way this card is templated. 

I wonder if there's any way she'll come back in 2nd edition, since it's anybody's guess whether Shadows will be a thing. I wonder if there'd be any better way to word this ability?

 

 

Action: Put Meera Reed into play by paying her Gold cost.
Reaction: After Meera Reed comes into play, choose one non-plot card in play (two if there is a Winter plot revealed) and treat its text box as though it were blank until the end of the phase. 
Reaction: After a Stark Character leaves play, return Meera Reed to your hand.

 

It's not quite Shadows, but isn't that kind of what shadows is? Cards that have yet to come into play, moves and gambits and players that the opponent doesn't know about? Shadows is kind of "just another hand of cards" just as Influence is "just another kind of resource" and the writing on the wall seems to be that they're simplifying duplication of mechanics.

Edited May 22, 2015 by Grimwalker

[-Istaril 157]

The difference with Shadows (aside from the immunity to claim), I think, is the "investment" in the hidden card (and, to a lesser extent, the ability to reference the number of entities in "Shadows"). I think that's what makes that play area so unique - the act of paying 2 gold for "something" down the road - that's scary to your opponent. While Jumping Meera might work, I suspect that with Nate's fondness for the first mechanic he designed (and the popularity of it overall among the playerbase) that we'll see it come back again. 

 

On the other hand, I think the idea of a the "bring things out of shadows" as a modification of the phase start isn't ideal (and with its own unique rules for responses, separate from start of phase), and hope they can come up with a better way to integrate the timing of pulling things out of shadows. 

Edited May 22, 2015 by -Istaril

[Grimwalker 646]

I see your point, but from a few things Nate has said, and a few things the Netrunner guys have said, I think overall that the LCG leadership is focused on preventing complexity creep--at least to the degree that if it's a new thing, it should either be able to fit on the card itself or be really self-explanatory. I'm handicapping the return of Shadows as...hmm, 2:1 against. And if it does come back, 2nd Pack cycle at the soonest.

Definitely should be streamlined if it does, though. As far as my revised Meera goes, yeah, claim is a thing, but I figured it would be balanced by not having to pay gold to put her in shadows.

Edited May 22, 2015 by Grimwalker

[ktom 598]

I'd agree with Istaril that the major problem with Shadows was always the mechanics of manipulating hidden cards, especially since that manipulation did not follow the standard action/timing window timing. Anyway, don't I remember something about them eliminating crests? Doesn't that argue for the elimination of Shadows?

 

If Shadows is preserved in 2nd Ed., I'd say that it needs to be a card mechanic (with a triggered effect on the card that brings it out of shadows), or an Agenda that lets you place and play cards from an "auxiliary hand." That would be more in keeping with what FFG has been working toward in other games - card mechanics rather than rule mechanics.

[-Istaril 157]

I see your point, but from a few things Nate has said, and a few things the Netrunner guys have said, I think overall that the LCG leadership is focused on preventing complexity creep--at least to the degree that if it's a new thing, it should either be able to fit on the card itself or be really self-explanatory. I'm handicapping the return of Shadows as...hmm, 2:1 against. And if it does come back, 2nd Pack cycle at the soonest.

Definitely should be streamlined if it does, though. As far as my revised Meera goes, yeah, claim is a thing, but I figured it would be balanced by not having to pay gold to put her in shadows.

 

You figured Meera would be balanced... *laughs*. You mean *as* balanced?

[Khudzlin 710]

I'd agree with Istaril that the major problem with Shadows was always the mechanics of manipulating hidden cards, especially since that manipulation did not follow the standard action/timing window timing. Anyway, don't I remember something about them eliminating crests? Doesn't that argue for the elimination of Shadows?

 

If Shadows is preserved in 2nd Ed., I'd say that it needs to be a card mechanic (with a triggered effect on the card that brings it out of shadows), or an Agenda that lets you place and play cards from an "auxiliary hand." That would be more in keeping with what FFG has been working toward in other games - card mechanics rather than rule mechanics.

 

Nate said that "except for Shadow, crests are just glorified traits". So a similar mechanic might appear in 2nd Ed. And since Meera is a Champion's card, she'll come back in some form (her CCG version came into play and went back to hand paying influence, a new one might do the same paying gold).