Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
SWeini

Tears of Lys vs. Immunity

Recommended Posts

Tears of Lys

Reaction: After you win an agot2-icon-intrigue.gif challenge as the attacking player, place a poison token on a character without an agot2-icon-intrigue.gif icon controlled by the losing opponent. At the end of the phase, if that character still has that poison token, remove it and kill that character.

 

 

A Tourney for the King (The King's Peace, 59)

Each Knight character you control gains renown and "immune to opponents' events."

 

  • The character is not "chosen", so it can be the immune character.
  • I can place the poison token on the character, because only the card itself is immune.
  • At the end of the round I can remove the poison token.
  • I can't kill the character because it is immune.
  • But I could play Tears of Lys because it does change the game state (placing/removing a token)

Anyone wants to comment?

Edited by SWeini

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He attempted to address that by pointing out that Tears lacks the word "choose."

However, since the framework of playing.a card on RRG p 10 necessarily entails choosing a target, I would say that an Immune to Events character cannot be chosen as a target, even though Tears' wording doesn't explicitly have that verb.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He attempted to address that by pointing out that Tears lacks the word "choose."

However, since the framework of playing.a card on RRG p 10 necessarily entails choosing a target, I would say that an Immune to Events character cannot be chosen as a target, even though Tears' wording doesn't explicitly have that verb.

 

Very incorrect. You'll note that "the framework of playing a card on RRG p. 10" says that targets are chosen if applicable. The fact that there is a place to choose targets in the initiation sequence doesn't mean that there will ALWAYS be a target, any more than the fact that there is a place to modify costs in the initiation sequence forces cost modification on every ability. If the word "choose" isn't used, there is no target.

 

That said...

 

  • The character is not "chosen", so it can be the immune character.
  • I can place the poison token on the character, because only the card itself is immune.
  • At the end of the round I can remove the poison token.
  • I can't kill the character because it is immune. <-- Untrue. The character is "immune to opponent's events," but what is resolving here is the delayed effect, not the event.
  • But I could play Tears of Lys because it does change the game state (placing/removing a token)

 

What the original post missed is this bit from the RRG (p. 6):

"When a delayed effect resolves, it is not treated as a new triggered ability, even if the delayed effect was originally created by a triggered ability."

 

Essentially, this means that whatever created the delayed effect IS NOT considered to be resolving when the delayed effect resolves. In short, Tears of Lys is in the discard pile at the end of the phase, so how can it be killing the character? So immunity from "opponent's events" isn't going to help. (Immunity from an opponent's card effects would.)

 

There is an argument that putting the poison token ON the character could be considered affecting the character. But we know immunity does not extend to peripheral entities. As such, an event that said "discard an attachment from a character" would work, despite the character's immunity. Similarly, an event that said "attach an attachment card from your discard pile to a character in play" would work, too, right? (It's the same thing as discarding the attachment, just in reverse). Replace "attachment" in that line of thought with "poison token," and there is no reason to think that - since it does not target the character - Tears of Lys cannot "attach" a poison token to the immune character.

 

tl : dr - Tears of Lys CAN put a poison token on an "immune to events" character. But, contrary to the OP's conclusion, it will also be killed by the delayed effect when the poison token comes off - unless the character is also immune to delayed effects (the fact that the delayed effect was created by an event doesn't matter).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Treachery

Interrupt: When the effects of a triggered character, location, or attachment ability would initiate, cancel those effects.

 

 

RR page 6

When a delayed effect resolves, it is not treated as a
new triggered ability, even if the delayed effect was
originally created by a triggered ability.

 

The delayed killing of the character is not a new triggered ability and therefore it cannot be canceled by Treachery.

 

Nonetheless, the delayed killing is still the consequence of playing an event card.

 

 

RR page 9

it cannot be targeted or affected
by effects that belong to that set

 

You could argue, that

  1. the creation of the delayed effect is an effect that affects the card, and therefore the card is immune to it - the delayed effect is never created and the poison token stays there forever
  2. the delayed effect is created on the card, but on resolution won't kill the character because the effect is still originating from an event
  3. the delayed effect is created on the card, and the character is killed because the delayed effect is just an delayed effect, not an event

The original post was my spontaneous interpretation of the rules with a lot of implicit question marks - and a little brainteaser for you guys.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nonetheless, the delayed killing is still the consequence of playing an event card.

 

It's creation is a consequence of playing the event card. It's initiation/resolution at the specified time is not.

 

You could argue, that

  1. the creation of the delayed effect is an effect that affects the card, and therefore the card is immune to it - the delayed effect is never created and the poison token stays there forever
  2. the delayed effect is created on the card, but on resolution won't kill the character because the effect is still originating from an event
  3. the delayed effect is created on the card, and the character is killed because the delayed effect is just an delayed effect, not an event

 

But the real answer is:

4. The delayed effect is created generally - not "on" any specific game element - and so when the time comes for it to initiate/resolve, it is not considered an "event effect," the poison token is discarded and the character is killed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

RR page 12

All lasting effects and/or delayed effects affecting
the card while it is in play expire for that card.

 

 

RR page 9

If a card gains immunity to an effect, pre-existing
lasting effects that have been applied to the card are
not removed.

 

I read it that way, that once a card gains immunity, it gains immunity against new lasting effects. Why not against new delayed effects? What is the difference between lasting effects and delayed affects?

 

Does immunity to events differentiate between events that create lasting effects and effects that create delayed effects? The card effect creates a lasting/delayed effect which is affecting the card. That creation of the lasting/delayed effect could be interpreted as an an instantaneous effect, which is affecting the card. Therefore the immunity would prevent the lasting/delayed effect from creating.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

RRG, p. 11

Lasting Effects

Some card abilities create e ects or conditions that affect the game state for a specified duration (such as “until the end of the challenge” or “until the end of the phase”). Such effects are known as lasting effects.

> A lasting effect persists beyond the resolution of the ability that created it, for the duration specified by the effect.  The effect continues to affect the game state for the specified duration regardless of whether the card that created the lasting effect is or remains in play.

 

 

RRG, p. 6

Delayed Effects

Some abilities contain delayed effects. Such abilities specify a future timing point, or indicate a future condition that may arise, and dictate an effect that is to happen at that time.

 

So a lasting effect is one that persists beyond the timing window in which it was created. Conversely, a delayed effect is a future condition. It might not even happen.

 

Said another way, a "lasting effect" is a continuation of the resolution of an effect that has already initiated. A "delayed effect" is a future condition under which another effect may or may not initiate. Another way to say it is that the lasting effect applies to the card through its entire duration, but a delayed effect does not apply unless and until its "future condition" actually happens.

 

That's the difference - one (lasting) has already resolved - and so is subject to the immunity that applied when it resolved. The other (delayed) has not yet, and may not ever, resolve - and so is only subject to the immunity that applies when/if it actually does resolve.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Essentially, this means that whatever created the delayed effect IS NOT considered to be resolving when the delayed effect resolves. In short, Tears of Lys is in the discard pile at the end of the phase, so how can it be killing the character? So immunity from "opponent's events" isn't going to help. (Immunity from an opponent's card effects would.)

 

 

Here is where you lose me.  You state that if the card had immunity to card effects, then that card would not be killed by tears of lys.  Therefore, the effect that is killing the character comes from a card.  What type of card?  Its not from a character, attachment, plot, location, or agenda.  So to me that leaves event as the only remaining card type.  Therefore wouldn't it be an event card effect and then a character who is immune to card effects would not be killed?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As is typically the case when Ktom and I disagree on a ruling (as we're seen as authorities, him moreso than me!), we've checked this with the relevant authorities and the following is final;

 

A delayed effect is still a card effect of the type that initiated it.

 

This is also supported by Effects, RR p7

 

A card effect is any effect that arises from the resolution of ability text printed on, or gained by, a card.

 

In this case, you CAN use Tears of Lys on an immune character, as it does not choose a character. You can place the token on that character, as that does not affect the character. You can remove the token at the end of the phase, as that also does not affect the character - but the character will not be killed, as it is immune to event card effects. 

Note that this is true EVEN if the card gained the immunity after the token was placed on it. The reason this is not "retroactive immunity" is because "p.7 Event card effects engage the game state at the time they resolve." - the event card effect is engaging the game at the time of the delayed effect resolving (p.6 "Delayed effects resolve automatically and immediately after their future timing point/ future condition occurs"). For a lasting effect, e.g. "until the end of the challenge, that character gains +2 STR", which engaged the game when it started - so gaining immunity afterwards does not retroactively protect you. The delayed effect engages the game when the *effect* started, not when the future condition was set by another aspect of the event card's effects.

Edited by -Istaril

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In this case, you CAN use Tears of Lys on an immune character, as it does not choose a character.

 

I understand the technical reason for this, as the RR clearly states that the word "choose" indicates that one or more targets must be chosen.

 

But as a new player, it's so strage that the phrase "place a poison token on a character" doesn't constitute a choice of target. It's bizarre rulings like this that make games difficult to learn and teach. Why couldn't the card read: "Choose a character without an [intrigue] icon controlled by the losing opponent. Place a posion token on that character."

 

Wouldn't that do away with the wacky but "legal" playing of Tears on a character with immunity to events? I'd personally prefer card errata in situations like this than difficult-to-grok rulings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In 1.0 and the CCG, delayed effects were treated as new, separate resolutions. As such, you ran into the question of how the event could be resolving a second time so long after it had been played. That said, the effect was there not because it was part of the game's framework, but because card text had affected the game. The RRG doesn't directly contradict this idea of delayed effects representing new, separate resolutions from the card effects that created them, hence my earlier interpretation (which would have been the ruling in 1.0 and the CCG).

 

That said, FFG has said that the more natural way of thinking about it - and so the way this situation will be treated in 2.0 - is that the delayed effect is a conditional extension of the original effect. The resolution of the delayed effect is a new resolution, but it is not a separate resolution. Since it is not separate, it will still be considered the effect of whatever card created it. As such, the delayed effect on Tears of Lys will not be able to affect an event-immune character.

 

Just be careful about the duration of "until the end of the phase" vs. the timing of "at the end of the phase" for cards that gain their immunity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So does that mean that I can sacrifice Bran to stop the poison token killing my character?

 

No. Bran stops the effects of the events from initiating - and this delayed effect initiated when the event did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sorry for the ressurection of that post but i've a question :

 

I've played "A Tourney for the King" as a Lannister player. In Challenge phase, i play "I Never bet against my  family" and dig out Jaime Lannister who is a Knight.

 

If i follow the ruling here : At the end of the phase, Jaime Lannister cannot be discard by the delayed effect of INBAMF because he is immune to event, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Otherwise, yes. If Jaime were immune to your own events, that would work.

 

Since the creation of this thread, an entry in the FAQ was added to verify that delayed effects created by event cards are considered to be event effects if/when they resolve. As such, a card immune to events would also be immune to a delayed effect created by an event.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...