Cancelling a Character Ability from a Character Not in Play

[lahomen 0]

Three scenarios, each one Fear of Winter is in play, and opponent has no influence.

1.  Opponent plays Catelyn Stark (LOW) from hand.  I play Seasick to cancel the triggered effect.  Can I cancel Cat's ability?  Does Cat end up in play?

2.  Opponent brings Meera Reed out of shadows, using their last gold.   I play Seasick to cancel the triggered effect. Can I cancel Meera's ability of blanking? Does Meera end up in play?

3.  Opponent puts Bloodrider into play to cancel my character ability.  I play Seasick to cancel the triggered effect. Can I cancel Bloodrider''s ability of cancelling my character ability? Does Bloodrider end up in play?

Card text:

Catelyn: Challenges: Put Catelyn Stark into play from your hand, knelt as a defender during an or challenge initiated against you. At the end of the phase, if Catelyn Stark is still in play, return her to your hand.

Meera Reed: Any Phase: Bring Meera Reed out of Shadows and into play by paying the rest of her gold cost. Then choose 1 non-plot card (2 instead if it is Winter) and treat its printed text box as if it were blank until end of the phase.

Bloodrider: Response: Kneel 2 influence and put Bloodrider into play from your hand to cancel the effects of a character ability just triggered.

Seasick: Response: Cancel a triggered effect unless its controller kneels 1 influence.

[ktom 598]

jmccarthy said:

1.  Opponent plays Catelyn Stark (LOW) from hand.  I play Seasick to cancel the triggered effect.  Can I cancel Cat's ability?  Does Cat end up in play?

Yes, you can cancel Cat's effect and, since that canceled effect puts her into play, she will stay in the player's hand. However, it is pointless for you to do so. Your opponent can simply trigger the effect all over again. He has not, in fact, played or put into a play a card from his hand yet this round and is thus not in violation of Fear of Winter. So you just played your only card from hand for the round and accomplished nothing meaningful.

jmccarthy said:

2.  Opponent brings Meera Reed out of shadows, using their last gold.   I play Seasick to cancel the triggered effect. Can I cancel Meera's ability of blanking? Does Meera end up in play?

Again, yes you can cancel the effect and Meera stays in Shadows. Since she did not come out of Shadows successfully, the "then choose and blank" part of the ability cannot finish initiating (all "then" effects are contingent upon the part before the word "then" being successful - it was not). Keep in mind that you will again have accomplished nothing - assuming your opponent still has gold. He can just trigger the effect again, while you have played your only "Fear of WInter" card for the round.

jmccarthy said:

3.  Opponent puts Bloodrider into play to cancel my character ability.  I play Seasick to cancel the triggered effect. Can I cancel Bloodrider''s ability of cancelling my character ability? Does Bloodrider end up in play?

This is a different situation because putting the Bloodrider into play is part of the COST of the cancel effect. A successful Seasick will stop the effect of canceling your character ability, but the cost of that cancel (kneeling influence and putting the character into play) will still be paid - and the Bloodrider will be on the table (as the only card your opponent can put into play for Fear of Winter).

[lahomen 0]

 Thanks for the clarification.  Competing examples always helps me understand.

[Ratatoskr 34]

Just for the record, because I think this should be the reference thread for Bloodrider (and also because I want confirmation from an higher office):

Is it correct to assume that Bloodrider cannot cancel the Response of another Bloodrider?

Bloodrider's ability cancels triggered character abilities. Itself it is a triggered effect, and it is a character ability, but it is not a triggered character ability, because it was triggered from out of play.

The situation is analogous to the question whether Bloodrider can cancel Meera's ability (which it can't). Cf. this thread, icluding reply by Nate.

[ktom 598]

Correct. Anything triggered from out-of-play is considered an "effect," not an "ability," even if it is on a character. So Bloodrider's play restrictions are not met if you want to try using a second to cancel a first.

[db123456 0]

 how about cancel cat(low) or drogo(cs) by bloodrider?

[Underworld40k 51]

 Same as sea sick, you will cancel the ability, and play your blood rider, the player with cat or drogo will simply trigger the effect again for their hand until you run out of cancels or let it through. In fear of winter conditions this still applies to cat and drogo as the card never comes into play when it is cancelled. 

[Underworld40k 51]

 Edit: In fear of winter conditions you could play 1 bloodrider to cancel, thats your card for the turn, then they can trigger the effect on cat/drogo again and still put them into play.

[Ratatoskr 34]

Underworld40k said:

 

 Same as sea sick, you will cancel the ability, and play your blood rider,

 

 

Not so. Cat and CS Drogo are triggered from out of play and can thus not be cancelled by Bloodrider. Cf. the posts by ktom and myself right above.

[Underworld40k 51]

 Ghh, after all my good work yesterday undone by the flimsy and tired grey matter between my ears.

[Underworld40k 51]

 On a related note, is there a section in the faq im missing that spells out that out of play character abilities are considered effects? Had a look and cant seem to spot it (although with my brain currently drowning in a poison of its own making i may well have read it a dozen times over and not seen it...). Or is it one of those rulings that FFG have had for years since before i even picked up my cards?

[Ratatoskr 34]

The terminology is highly counter-intuitive and a bit messed up, if you ask me, but ultimately, the FAQ sorts it out.

Three FAQ paragraphs are of importance here (emphasis mine):

(3.6) Triggered Effects
Any effect that a player chooses to execute is
considered a "triggered effect." Thus any effect
that begins with a "Phase:" or "Response:"
is a triggered effect. Also note that playing
an event card is thus considered a triggered
effect. A "triggered ability" is a triggered effect
printed on a card already in play.

(3.7) Card Abilities
"Card abilities" (i.e. "Character ability,"
"Location ability," or "Attachment ability")
refers to anything in a card's text box, except
for traits, keywords, and flavor text. "Card
abilities" also refers to any abilities (again,
keywords and traits are excluded) gained by
card effects

(3.10) Card Ability Types
[...]
Triggered Abilities: Any ability on a card in
play that begins with "Phase:" or "Response:"
is a triggered ability. These abilities are
optional, and must be triggered by the player
controlling the card at the appropriate time
for their effect(s) to occur. An example of a
triggered ability is the Dominance: effect on
Cersei Lannister (CORE L39).

So, the effect of the Jumping Khal or LoW Cately is a Triggered Effect as per 3.6, it is a Character Ability as per 3.7, but it is not a Triggered Character Ability as per 3.10, because the card is not in play when the ability is triggered. Bloodrider cancels only Triggered Character Abilities, however.

As I said, a bit counterintuitive. But that's how things roll.
 

[Underworld40k 51]

Cheers Ratatoskr, read all of those on their own but it really needs all 3 of them together to appear 'obvious' (well, as obvious as FFG will make it). Its the LotR iron throne and death by payne that has been causing us headaches atm, esp with Meera.

 

[Ratatoskr 34]

Underworld40k said:

 

Cheers Ratatoskr, read all of those on their own but it really needs all 3 of them together to appear 'obvious' (well, as obvious as FFG will make it). Its the LotR iron throne and death by payne that has been causing us headaches atm, esp with Meera.

 

 

 

In this thread there's a wealth of information about how Meera works, including the Death By Payne issue. Cf. Reply #48 et seqq. in particular. The Iron Throne is entirely analogous to Bloodrider.

[db123456 0]

 if bloodrider come into play to cancel a char's save(step2 of the VM),will it be killed in step3?

[ktom 598]

General consensus is that when it comes to passive and triggered effects, if the character is not there for initiation, it is not subject to resolution.

[Ratatoskr 34]

ktom said:

General consensus is that when it comes to passive and triggered effects, if the character is not there for initiation, it is not subject to resolution.

Did we have word from FFG on this recently? Because this is at least the second time you flip-flopped on this. Back in February, you convinced me it was exactly the other way round. In August last year you said what you said here. ~Make up your mind, will ya?

That said, I've sent that question to FFG twice and haven't received an answer. ~Maybe I'm on some kind of blacklist or something.

[Bomb 66]

I think Valar is different from Wildfire Assault in that aspect.  To me, Wildfire Assault does its kill effect during Step 3 Resolution.  Step 1 Initiation is for choosing 3 characters not to die, and Darkstar is ineligible for this.

Valar, on the other hand, initiates it's effect during Step 1, thus allowing saves to be made among eligible to be killed characters during step 2. If Darkstar enters during Step 2 because of Maester of the Suns save effect, it should not be subject to the kill effect.  Otherwise, I am struggling to see the point of Step 1.  You look at all eligible characters to die in Step 1 and thus choose who you want to save from the kill effect based on what characters were present in Step 1 during Step 2.

I also don't really know.  It's a tricky situation overall.

There was a hypothetical situation post I made a few weeks ago where if Timmett Son of Timmett's ability were reversed, would he be eligible to be killed if he stood up from saving Tyrion during a Valar.  I thought we agree that he would not be killed because that is after kill effects initiation.

I couldn't get to the August link you posted.

[ktom 598]

Ratatoskr said:

Did we have word from FFG on this recently? Because this is at least the second time you flip-flopped on this. Back in February, you convinced me it was exactly the other way round. In August last year you said what you said here. ~Make up your mind, will ya?

Notice the way I phrased it - "the general consensus is….".

I happen to think the general consensus is wrong. I still think that when a non-targeted effect resolves (eg, Valar, Balerion), it shouldn't matter if the character was there for initiation or not because it is the (untargeted) resolution that matters. And since it is not targeted, it applies to everything in play. But others have a really hard time with that, not feeling comfortable breaking the initiate-resolve chain for the character that came into play, so I said what the general consensus amongst players seems to be, even though I disagree.

It may have been ruled by FFG at some point, or I may have just gotten tired of explaining to people why I think they're wrong. I don't remember.

So that's the reason for the "switch." I still think the answer from February is the right answer, but it felt like an uphill battle, so I threw in the towel. A definitive answer from FFG is probably the best thing.

[mdc273 29]

In the case of Valar/Wildfire and Maester of the Sun/Darkstar/Bloodrider, since an effect is executed after the save opportunity (in this case the kill), how can Darkstar and Bloodrider not die? They enter play in Step 2 and then the kill effects are executed in Step 3 aren't they?

[ktom 598]

mdc273 said:

In the case of Valar/Wildfire and Maester of the Sun/Darkstar/Bloodrider, since an effect is executed after the save opportunity (in this case the kill), how can Darkstar and Bloodrider not die? They enter play in Step 2 and then the kill effects are executed in Step 3 aren't they?

The idea is that whatever happens in Step 3 actually started in Step 1. So, since the things that came into play during Step 2 missed the beginning, they are not subject to the end. It is based on the premise (which is true) that Step 1 and Step 3 are two parts of the same effect - the initiation and the resolution. You cannot have a Step 1 without a Step 3, or a Step 3 without a Step 1. So the card that doesn't have a Step 1 (because it wasn't in play) should not have a Step 3.

Bomb said:

There was a hypothetical situation post I made a few weeks ago where if Timmett Son of Timmett's ability were reversed, would he be eligible to be killed if he stood up from saving Tyrion during a Valar. I thought we agree that he would not be killed because that is after kill effects initiation.

This is not really the same thing because in that scenario, Timmett is around when Valar initiates. His "CBK" status changes during the save/cancel step, but he is there fore the initiation.

[Bomb 66]

ktom said:

 

Bomb said:

There was a hypothetical situation post I made a few weeks ago where if Timmett Son of Timmett's ability were reversed, would he be eligible to be killed if he stood up from saving Tyrion during a Valar. I thought we agree that he would not be killed because that is after kill effects initiation.

This is not really the same thing because in that scenario, Timmett is around when Valar initiates. His "CBK" status changes during the save/cancel step, but he is there fore the initiation.

 

I think I mis-spoke.

The scenario that was reversed was what if Clansman must stand to save Tyrion.  So, if Timett stood to save Tyrion from Valar, would he then be killed by Valar?  I had though we came to a point where he would not be killed by Valar in the discussion, but I can't recall and can't seem to find that forum topic right now.

[ktom 598]

Bomb said:

The scenario that was reversed was what if Clansman must stand to save Tyrion.  So, if Timett stood to save Tyrion from Valar, would he then be killed by Valar?  I had though we came to a point where he would not be killed by Valar in the discussion, but I can't recall and can't seem to find that forum topic right now.

Doesn't sound right. If he stands -  losing his CBK in Step 2 - he'd die for Valar in Step 3. Now, if the kill was targeted - so that he could not be chosen during Step 1 - he would not die in Step 3 after standing in Step 2.

[mdc273 29]

In the case of Darkstar and Bloodrider entering play in Step 2, would they have an opportunity to be saved? I can see why the concensus would be the way it is if the framework wouldn't allow the save. I would imagine they do get a save opportunity as there is an effect waiting to resolve for which they can be saved, even though they weren't in play for the "trigger" of the effect.

My assumption was that the only reason to say that an effect triggered in step 1 was to indicate that it in fact is going to resolve if nothing happens to prevent and/or modify it. Knowing it's triggering means you know you have to cancel/save or it will successfully resolve it's effect on all affected parties. Is that not what it represents?

[ktom 598]

mdc273 said:

In the case of Darkstar and Bloodrider entering play in Step 2, would they have an opportunity to be saved?

Depends entirely on your interpretation of whether they will die in Step 3. If you say they will, you get the opportunity to save them. If you say the won't, they are not in danger of being killed, so the play restrictions for the save are not met (and you can't save them for that reason, not because of a timing reason).