attachment immunity and dragon fear

Circadia · July 18, 2012

Because it doesn't say "I am removing all of your attachments", Bastard explicitly targets the other attachments ("discard all other attachments"). If, instead, it said "character is not a legal target for attachments that are not named Bastard", that would have no effect on a character that was immune to opponent's attachments, because it is modifying the properties of the character rather than directly discarding the attachments.

ktom · July 18, 2012

mdc273 said:

I like your Dragon Fear explanation there, but then why does that not make Bastard work like this instead of how you suggest:

Bastard - "I, Bastard, am removing all of your attachments, attached character."

Attached Character - "No, you're not."

This is explained above, as well as in Circadia's post.

Always look for the subject of the effect. By using the text "discard all other attachments on attached character," you are told that Bastard is not saying "Hey, attached character, I am removing your attachments." It is saying "Hey, attachments - beat it."

Your example doesn't really fit because immunity does not stand for the premise that "person A can not do anything to person B." It's more like "person A can not slap person B in the face directly." That doesn't stop person A from robbing person B's comic book collection; it may feel like a slap in the face, but it's not. Nor does it stop person A from paying person C to slap person B in the face. Hard. So long as person A's hand never comes in contact with person B's face, you're following the rule.

Same deal here. Bastard (the attachment) cannot directly act upon the character (assuming it is "immune to attachments") because the character ignores any direct effects. But Bastard's discard effect is not acting on the character - it is acting on the attachments on that character. After all, what is leaving play (ie, "being discarded"), the attachments or the character? The attachments, right? So person A is stealing person B's comic book collection, not slapping him in the face.

Now, if Bastard was worded in such a way that the character was the subject of the ability text, it would be a different story. For example, if the text said something like "attached character loses all attachments other than Bastard," the text would be acting directly on the character. Said another way, the damage will be very similar whether I rear-end your car or you back your car into mine. The mechanic isn't going to care a whole lot one way or another - but the insurance company certainly will!

Bomb · July 18, 2012

ktom said:

The distinction is in the text of the attachment. It says:

"If there is at least 1 Dragon character in play, attached character must be chosen for MIL claim if able."

Because it phrases this in terms of "…attached character must be chosen…," it is working on the character, changing its eligibility to be chosen for MIL claim. That is, the character's eligibility as a target for MIL claim is affected directly (which, of course, has an indirect effect on the player's actual choice). If it were phrased differently, eg, "If there is at least 1 Dragon character in play, you cannot choose the attached character to satisfy MIL claim," that would be the attachment directly affecting the player (or at least the player's choice).

Look for the subject of the sentence. That is what is being directly affected. If it is being directly affected, immunity can protect it.

If you are having trouble with it, consider the opposite: "Attached character CANNOT be chosen for MIL claim." That is working much more plainly working directly on the character, changing it's eligibility as a target for MIL claim. Dragon Fear is the same thing, just in reverse. (Although I sympathize that "must be chosen" is a lot harder to see as a change in target eligibility than "cannot be chosen.")

Thanks ktom!

I kind of agree with all of that. I am in a position where I am satisfied with it working either way. The fact that you understand how it's a fine line between whether it is affecting the players choice for MIL claim versus affecting the attached character by making it the only MIL claim target certainly helps.

ktom · July 18, 2012

Bomb said:

The fact that you understand how it's a fine line between whether it is affecting the players choice for MIL claim versus affecting the attached character by making it the only MIL claim target certainly helps.

No sweat.

It's kind of a theme in this thread that even when a different wording would make no practical difference in the outcome of an effect, the actual wording used often has a huge impact on whether immunity applies or not.

mdc273 · July 18, 2012

Back to Dragon Fear:

I'm still struggling with the idea that the compulsion/obligation doesn't affect the game/player, so how about this angle:

Pyat Pree's effect has fully resolved before Cat O' the Canals has been chosen as the target of claim.

Dragon Fear's effect has not fully resolved until attached character has been chosen to the target of claim.

Therefore Cat O' the Canals immunity doesn't apply and attached character's does.

ktom · July 18, 2012

mdc273 said:

I'm still struggling with the idea that the compulsion/obligation doesn't affect the game/player,

I really don't know how many ways I can say this:

Look at the subject of the effect. The subject is what is being acted upon directly.
If the immune card is being acted on directly (ie, is the subject of the effect), it ignores the effect

That really is all there is to it. I don't know why you keep trying to find another angle or generalization. To whit:

mdc273 said:

so how about this angle:

Pyat Pree's effect has fully resolved before Cat O' the Canals has been chosen as the target of claim.

Dragon Fear's effect has not fully resolved until attached character has been chosen to the target of claim.

Therefore Cat O' the Canals immunity doesn't apply and attached character's does.

The difference between Pyat and Dragon Fear is not one of timing; it is one of what the effect is acting on.

Pyat is a claim replacement effect. It works directly on "claim," the game mechanic, which then acts on Cat. Cat is not immune to game mechanics, so her immunity is never even considered.

Dragon Fear is not a claim replacement. It does not work directly on "claim," the game mechanic. It works directly on the character, making it the principle target. As such, that character's immunity must be considered.

As it says in the FAQ: "A card with immunity ignores the effects of card types to which it is immune. When determining immunity…, check the effect of each card. A card's immunity only extends to effects that would ordinarily be applied to cards of the immune card's type." So you see, the timing of when something resolves is not the way to try to explain why something is immune.

ktom · July 18, 2012

What I think you are getting hung up on here is the difference between direct effect and any effect.

Let's say I have an event that says "Challenges: Kneel all characters controlled by the opponent to your left." Doesn't that affect the game/player by making it impossible for him to attack or defend for the rest of the phase? And if so, doesn't that mean that any character that is immune to events is going to end up knelt because the game/player is the one affected?

Obviously, the answer to that is no. Characters that are immune to events are not going to be knelt because the card's effect is applied to the characters controlled by the opponent. After all, it is the characters that kneel, not the player. It changes the game situation and circumstances, meaning that the player is affected as a result of the characters being affected, but the consequences to the player are a step removed from the effect on the characters.

So, that one is relatively easy, but how about this: Suppose you put an attachment on one of my characters that says "Attached character cannot be declared as an attacker or defender." Is that affecting the character - by placing a limiting condition on it - or is it affecting the player - by compelling him or her not to declare the character? From an "outcomes" standpoint, it really doesn't matter because whether "the player cannot declare the character" or "the character cannot be declared by the player," the character isn't going to be participating in any challenges.

But it makes a huge difference from the immunity standpoint. And, we know from the FAQ passage quoted above, that the importance lies in what he attachment's effect is applied to. To determine that, you look at the way the card is worded. By saying "the character cannot be declared…," the effect is applying itself to the character. It's not hard to imagine a wording that has the same overall meaning, but is applied to the player (eg, "The attached character's controller cannot declare this character as…"). Same overall meaning, but different way of getting there.

Dragon Fear is similar, but a little more subtle. The fact that it is worded as "this character must be chosen by you" instead of "you must choose this character" has a huge impact on what the effect is being applied to. The first is applied to the character - so the character can be immune to it. The second is applied to the player, "you," so the character cannot be immune to it.

Ultimately, this is the process you need to go through for immunity. Is X applied to Y? Yes? Then Y can be "immune to X."

The other ways you have been trying to explain Dragon Fear might have worked for Dragon Fear, but they won't necessarily work in all situations. This will.

mdc273 · July 19, 2012

My issue is that I disagree with your interpretation of what Dragon Fear's effect affects. I respect and actually agree that the character should be immune. I think I would've ruled it that way if I had no prior knowledge. It's just that given the opportunity to review it, I just don't see the framework of the rules creating that situation.

The only valid long-hand version of Dragon Fear that I can see is:

Attached character is required to have the status of chosen if military claim must be satisfied and attached character is a valid target.

Or written differently:

If military claim must be satisfied and attached character is a valid target, attached character is required to have the status of chosen.

Dragon Fear has to be either a replacement effect or give all non-attached characters "Cannot be chosen for claim.". I see no other way this effect can impact the game. Requiring a character to be chosen when the framework action is unmodified, would do nothing. The game doesn't know about the requirement.

----

Dragon Fear - "Hey bub, you have to choose attached character." or Character - "Hey man, this sucks. You have to choose me."

Game - "Player, choose any character you control for claim."

Dragon Fear - "NO HE HAS TO CHOOSE ATTACHED CHARACTER!!!! YOU'RE LYING!!! ATTACHED CHARACTER MUST BE CHOSEN!!!"

Game - "Dragon Fear, the framework action does not state any limitation on the player's choice."

Dragon Fear - "I'm creating the requirement!!!!!"

Game - "I do not refer to you unless you create an effect that is not a framework action. If you do not, I refer to the framework actions."

Dragon Fear - "I'm creating an effect requiring attached character to be chosen for claim!!!!"

Game - "A requirement is not an effect."

Player - "Game, I choose my refugee for claim."

Game - "Player, that choice is valid."

----

It may lack the word "instead", but Dragon Fear must ultimately be a replacement effect which replaces:

The player chooses characters for claim.

With something akin to:

The player chooses characters with Dragon Fear for claim. If claim is not fully satisfied the player chooses characters without Dragon Fear for claim.

I would argue the same for "Attached character cannot be declared as an attacker or defender." The only way for this to actually work is if it replaces:

Active player kneels attacking/defending characters.

with something akin to

Active player kneels attacking/defending characters except for attached character.

If you were to change it to the "You may not declare attached character as an attacker or defender." text it would still be an unknown requirement by the game as the framework action does not have that restriction if it is not replaced.

Also, I would say the simplest solution to this is probably to assume that all constant effects generated by attachments are considered to be gained text of the character.
This creates a situation where Dragon Fear attempts to give the character this text and fails, same with the cannot attack/defend. I'm not sure what attachment this assumption would negatively impact.

This thread has probably out-stayed its welcome because of me and I'd be glad to take it elsewhere if there were somewhere appropriate for it. Maybe it belongs in the off-topic forum. I think the discussion has merit, though, and it certainly is helping me.

dragonfear - Trying something new. Seems like a good idea to go twitter style and hashtag posts about specific cards so they're easier to find. I want to see if the serch function finds it.

KristoffStark · July 19, 2012

mdc273 said:

My issue is that I disagree with your interpretation of what Dragon Fear's effect affects. I respect and actually agree that the character should be immune. I think I would've ruled it that way if I had no prior knowledge. It's just that given the opportunity to review it, I just don't see the framework of the rules creating that situation.

The only valid long-hand version of Dragon Fear that I can see is:

Attached character is required to have the status of chosen if military claim must be satisfied and attached character is a valid target.

Or written differently:

If military claim must be satisfied and attached character is a valid target, attached character is required to have the status of chosen.

Dragon Fear has to be either a replacement effect or give all non-attached characters "Cannot be chosen for claim.". I see no other way this effect can impact the game. Requiring a character to be chosen when the framework action is unmodified, would do nothing. The game doesn't know about the requirement.

----

Dragon Fear - "Hey bub, you have to choose attached character." or Character - "Hey man, this sucks. You have to choose me."

Game - "Player, choose any character you control for claim."

Dragon Fear - "NO HE HAS TO CHOOSE ATTACHED CHARACTER!!!! YOU'RE LYING!!! ATTACHED CHARACTER MUST BE CHOSEN!!!"

Game - "Dragon Fear, the framework action does not state any limitation on the player's choice."

Dragon Fear - "I'm creating the requirement!!!!!"

Game - "I do not refer to you unless you create an effect that is not a framework action. If you do not, I refer to the framework actions."

Dragon Fear - "I'm creating an effect requiring attached character to be chosen for claim!!!!"

Game - "A requirement is not an effect."

Player - "Game, I choose my refugee for claim."

Game - "Player, that choice is valid."

----

It may lack the word "instead", but Dragon Fear must ultimately be a replacement effect which replaces:

The player chooses characters for claim.

With something akin to:

The player chooses characters with Dragon Fear for claim. If claim is not fully satisfied the player chooses characters without Dragon Fear for claim.

I would argue the same for "Attached character cannot be declared as an attacker or defender." The only way for this to actually work is if it replaces:

Active player kneels attacking/defending characters.

with something akin to

Active player kneels attacking/defending characters except for attached character.

If you were to change it to the "You may not declare attached character as an attacker or defender." text it would still be an unknown requirement by the game as the framework action does not have that restriction if it is not replaced.

Also, I would say the simplest solution to this is probably to assume that all constant effects generated by attachments are considered to be gained text of the character.
This creates a situation where Dragon Fear attempts to give the character this text and fails, same with the cannot attack/defend. I'm not sure what attachment this assumption would negatively impact.

This thread has probably out-stayed its welcome because of me and I'd be glad to take it elsewhere if there were somewhere appropriate for it. Maybe it belongs in the off-topic forum. I think the discussion has merit, though, and it certainly is helping me.

dragonfear - Trying something new. Seems like a good idea to go twitter style and hashtag posts about specific cards so they're easier to find. I want to see if the serch function finds it.

The flaw I see with your logic in the above post is that all framework actions like choosing claim, or kneeling attackers/defenders, all have the unspoken caveat "if the choice is valid."

That being the case, there is no need to read "Active player kneels attacking/defending characters" as "Active player kneels attacking/defending characters except for attached character" because the attached character, in this case, is no longer a valid choice. I don't understand why you don't think the game understands that without having to create some broad sweeping pseudo effect.

It sounds like you think every framework window needs to be rewritten with the text "unless another ability says otherwise," but that is already covered. The core book refers to the text box of a card as its "rules text." That means that the text inside those boxes constitute new rules that modify how the game is played.

That being said, to use your example, card interaction actually works like this:

Dragon Fear - "Hey bub, you have to choose attached character."

Game - "Player, choose any character you control for claim."

Dragon Fear - "Actually, I introduce the rule that the character I'm attached to must be chosen."

Game - "Oh, my mistake. Player, you must choose the attached character."

Bomb · July 19, 2012

mdc273 said:

This thread has probably out-stayed its welcome because of me and I'd be glad to take it elsewhere if there were somewhere appropriate for it. Maybe it belongs in the off-topic forum. I think the discussion has merit, though, and it certainly is helping me.

I don't think I'd say that. It's a valid topic of discussion.

Even after reading everything ktom wrote and understanding it, the whole thing still does not sit well with me. I just don't have any logical explanation as to why. Let's just call it clashing of the heart versus the mind.

It's a lot like voting for the president of the United States. No matter who you vote for, you know you're going to hate them.

KristoffStark · July 19, 2012