Cat o'the Canals vs Joust characters

[Bolzano2 0]

The question has been raised on our boards whether or not Cat could be declared as a defender along with some other character against an attacking character with the keyword "Joust".

My guess is she cannot, even though she is immune, because the other character - which is not immune - cannot be declared at the same time as Cat'. When you look at the restriction to declare him as a defender, you count the total number of character you want to declare and Cat' is in that count - making it 2, not 1, even though she is immune - so the 2nd character is not legal to be declared as a defender, so it is also not legal to declare both.

However I'd say you may declare Cat 'o the canals + Jaqen H'gar in case he got Immunity to opponent's card effects through your opponent's dead Cat'...

[KristoffStark 1]

You seem to be operating under the concept that while keywords are not Abilities, they are Effects.  Unless I am mistaken, that's not the case.

I've just spent some time plumbing the depths of the FAQ looking for an indication that Immunity to Effects would grant immunity to keywords, and I couldn't find it.  In fact, all I could find on the subject was the clarification that an "Effect" is what an Ability does after it's been initiated.

That being the case, it seems that Joust would function, regardless of what characters are in the equation.

[Ratatoskr 34]

Keywords are card effects. The definition of "effect" is a whole lot broader than the definition of "ability". The, well, effects of Agendas or Plots are not abilities, but they are card effects, and Cat is immune to them. She is and has always been immune to keywords like Dealdy or Stealth.

Bolzano - the definition of Joust is "While a character withn the joust keyword is attacking alone, the defending opponent cannot declare more than 1 character as a defender". So Joust works on the defending *player*, not on any character, so I'd say Cat's immunity doesn't apply.

[KristoffStark 1]

Ratatoskr said:

Keywords are card effects. The definition of "effect" is a whole lot broader than the definition of "ability". The, well, effects of Agendas or Plots are not abilities, but they are card effects, and Cat is immune to them. She is and has always been immune to keywords like Dealdy or Stealth.

Can you point me to that?  All I could find regarding the deffininition of "Effect" were phrases like this:

"Effect
The effect of a character ability is what the
ability does when triggered. Viserion's ability
has the effect of killing the targeted character."

and

"Effect
The effect of an event is what the event card
does when played. A Lannister Pays His Debts
has an effect of killing the targeted character."

[Bolzano2 0]

To Kristoff, anything written on a card is basically a card effect.

A while ago I had asked it to FFG? out of curiosity, so here is the answer :

"Card effects do include anything written in a card's text box. They are distinguished from game effects, which include framework events and challenge claim. Anything that happens is either a card effect or a game effect."

So, keywords are card effects.

To Ratatosk, I think the reasonning that it affects the player is not applicable since it also affects the character (being not able to defend). Usually, effects makes players do things, such as kneeling characters, or killing them for instance. But a card immune to such effects cannot be affected by them, even if in the end that's a player actually resolving the effect. For instance, look at the plot "Condemned by the Realm" that says  :

"When revealed,choose an opponent. Then,that opponent must choose and kill a character he or she does not control,if able. "

Cat o'the Canals would be imunne to such effect, because it is a plot effect (thus a card effect) and not a player effect. It also sticks to FFG definition.

 

So, to resolve this, I would stick to the restriction limiting the number of characters that can be declared as defenders that prevent a non-immune character to be declared along with Cat o'the Canals.

[KristoffStark 1]

Thanks.  Strange that this hadn't made its way into an FAQ.

[Bolzano2 0]

Btw about definition of card effects for keywords, even without above word from FFG, the FAQ says :

(4.14) Keywords
Keyword effects with a point of initiation
(such as ambush) cannot be canceled.
Characters can be saved from the effects of a
keyword like deadly.

So, it's written that they are effects. And they are printed on cards. So, good enough for me to say that they are card effects

[Ratatoskr 34]

KristoffStark said:

Ratatoskr said:

 

Keywords are card effects. The definition of "effect" is a whole lot broader than the definition of "ability". The, well, effects of Agendas or Plots are not abilities, but they are card effects, and Cat is immune to them. She is and has always been immune to keywords like Dealdy or Stealth.

 

 

Can you point me to that?  All I could find regarding the deffininition of "Effect" were phrases like this:

"Effect
The effect of a character ability is what the
ability does when triggered. Viserion's ability
has the effect of killing the targeted character."

and

"Effect
The effect of an event is what the event card
does when played. A Lannister Pays His Debts
has an effect of killing the targeted character."

The two passages you quote deal specifically with the effects of abilities and events. But the FAQ uses "effects" in lots of different contexts. "Effect" is probably the most used word in the entire FAQ It is clear from context that a whole lot more is meant than just the effects of abilities and events. Or would you argue that No player may draw more than three additional cards per round, regardless of card effects (p.7) means that only draw originating from abilities and events counts against the draw cap, and draw from plots and agendas does not? Look through the Rulebook and the FAQ for "card effects" and it should become clear that more than just the effects of abilities and events is meant by "effects". Even what the Multiplayer titles do are effects (but not card effects).

Then there's passages like these:

Continuous or constant plot effects take effect immediately and simultaneously (p.7)

"When revealed" plot effects are essentially self-referential passive effects (p.7)

the effects of an Agenda card cannot be canceled (p.11)

Keyword effects with a point of initiation (such as ambush) cannot be canceled (p.11)

Basically, any text written on a card that is not titles, traits, costs, play restrictions, flavour text or copyright notices is card effects.

[KristoffStark 1]

Ratatoskr said:

Basically, any text written on a card that is not titles, traits, costs, play restrictions, flavour text or copyright notices is card effects.

I'm just saying that it would be nice not to have to infer that from context.

[Mathias Fricot 0]

Would Cat be immune to Deadly? I always thought the character isn't interacting with Cat, the character is interacting with the challenge framework and that is what is causing the character to die from deadly.

[Ratatoskr 34]

Bolzano said:

To Ratatosk, I think the reasonning that it affects the player is not applicable since it also affects the character (being not able to defend). Usually, effects makes players do things, such as kneeling characters, or killing them for instance. But a card immune to such effects cannot be affected by them, even if in the end that's a player actually resolving the effect. For instance, look at the plot "Condemned by the Realm" that says  :

"When revealed,choose an opponent. Then,that opponent must choose and kill a character he or she does not control,if able. "

Cat o'the Canals would be imunne to such effect, because it is a plot effect (thus a card effect) and not a player effect. It also sticks to FFG definition.

I'm not convinced. The kill effect of Condemned by the Realm is still a card effect, even if it is the player that does the choosing. Declaring defenders is not a card effect though, it is a framework event. The Joust keyword constricts the ability of the defending player to declare characters as defenders.

We know that Pyat Pree can kill Cat, because he doesn't work on Cat, he works on Claim, and Claim is a framework event, and Cat is immune to card effects, not to framework events.

It seems to me that this is basically the same: Joust doesn't work on Cat, it works on declaring defenders, and declaring defenders is a framework event, not a card effect.

[KristoffStark 1]

If you're saying that Cat is immune to the limitations imposed by the joust keyword, would you then also say she could defend in addition to another character when your opponent has revealed

Desolate Passage
Type: Plot House: Neutral
Inc: 4 Init: 3 Claim: 1
Each player cannot declare more than 1 attacker or defender in each challenge.

Or that she could be declared as an attacker with

Lineage and Legacy
Type: Plot House: Neutral
Inc: 4 Init: 4 Claim: 1
Power Struggle.
A player cannot initiate a Military challenge unless he or she has won a Power challenge that phase.

If she could ignore the joust restriction, couldn't she then also ignore the limitations created here?

[ktom 598]

Bolzano said:

To Ratatosk, I think the reasonning that it affects the player is not applicable since it also affects the character (being not able to defend). Usually, effects makes players do things, such as kneeling characters, or killing them for instance. But a card immune to such effects cannot be affected by them, even if in the end that's a player actually resolving the effect. For instance, look at the plot "Condemned by the Realm" that says  :

 

"When revealed,choose an opponent. Then,that opponent must choose and kill a character he or she does not control,if able. "

Cat o'the Canals would be imunne to such effect, because it is a plot effect (thus a card effect) and not a player effect. It also sticks to FFG definition.

So, to resolve this, I would stick to the restriction limiting the number of characters that can be declared as defenders that prevent a non-immune character to be declared along with Cat o'the Canals.

The part of this analysis you are missing is that immunity only protects the immune card from being chosen as the target of what it is immune to as well as the direct effects of what is immune to.

 

In your Condemned by the Realm example, Cat is immune on two fronts. First, the character is chosen as the target of the plot's effect. It doesn't matter that an opponent is chosen first to identify who is doing the choosing because immunity cares about what is being chosen (in this case, Cat), not who is doing the choosing. Similarly, when the character actually dies, it is doing so because the card effect is resolving to kill it. The character dies as a direct result of the resolution of the plot effect. It's not like the plot resolves on the player, and then the player resolves on Cat; it is the plot actually resolving on Cat. Therefore, the plot's (card) effect will be ignored by Cat with her "immune to card effects."

 

The example you are really looking for here is Pyat Pree. Pyat's replacement effect is certainly a card effect, right? But it acts by changing the way the claim effect of the challenge is resolved. So when the character is chosen and killed in a challenge in which Pyat attacked alone, it is the framework claim effect that is targeting and resolving to (directly) kill the card. Since it is the (modified) claim effect that does the actual killing, Cat would not be immune to the claim of that challenge any more than she is to any other challenge. So the card effect modifies the way a framework event is to be resolved, then the framework event works directly on Cat - despite her immunity to card effects. (This, btw, is a given. FFG has ruled and agreed with this explanation of replaced claim being able to hit Cat many times.)

Well, Joust is the same way. It limits what the player can do when resolving the framework event for declaring defenders. Cat is not "immune" to Joust because Joust does not work directly on the characters involved - and immunity only protects cards from things applied directly to them.

Compare the wording of Joust to the wording on King Balon. Because he specifically says "characters with lower STR cannot be declared...," he is working directly on the various defending characters, making them ineligible choices when resolving the framework event for declaring defenders (the way that characters without the appropriate icon are ineligible choices). So while Cat would not be immune to Joust (or Desolate Passage, or Lineage & Legacy) because of the lack of direct effect applied to her, she would be immune to King Balon.

[Mathias Fricot 0]

-

Edited November 23, 2013 by Mathias Fricot

[ktom 598]

Mathias Fricot said:

I guess she can still die to deadly then, right? since that isn't the character interacting with her, its part of the challenge framework?

Deadly is no more a part of the challenge framework than Vengeful or Vigilant is. Passive effects activated by the resolution of a challenge are not actually part of the game effects that define how a challenge is resolved.

Deadly is a (passive) card effect that is initiated by the resolution of a challenge. When it resolves, a character is chosen and killed - directly by the card effect. Therefore, as a card effect that acts directly on a character when it resolves, Cat's "immune to card effects" protects her from Deadly. It protects her from Stealth, too (which is still considered a card effect, not a game effect, even though the timing of its resolution is dictated by a framework event; just because there is a framework event that says "resolve Stealth now" does not make Stealth a game effect instead of a card effect).

[Ratatoskr 34]

ktom said:

lots of smart stuff

~Wait...I was right *again*? Man, I was on a roll last night!

[ktom 598]

Ratatoskr said:

ktom said:

lots of smart stuff

 

~Wait...I was right *again*? Man, I was on a roll last night!

In the words of the grandfather. Yes, you're very smart. Now be quiet. 

Seriously, though, I reiterated the examples with the mechanical aspects to illustrate exactly how the card effect is working indirectly. The potential reasoning Bolanzo seemed to be heading toward was a fairly common one in relation to Cat saying that since a card effect is involved to modify the framework event, Cat must be immune to it. (That reasoning has been used to argue against Pyat being able to get Cat.) I just wanted to make sure it was clear, generally speaking, that the answer is as much about immunity only protecting from direct effects as it is about the application of a framework event in the specific Cat example.

[Ratatoskr 34]

ktom said:

In the words of the grandfather. Yes, you're very smart. Now be quiet. 

 

That's all I wanted to hear!

~Come to think of it, I bet you heard these words a *lot* when you were a kid. Bet you still do.

[Bolzano2 0]

ktom said:

The potential reasoning Bolanzo seemed to be heading toward was a fairly common one in relation to Cat saying that since a card effect is involved to modify the framework event, Cat must be immune to it. (That reasoning has been used to argue against Pyat being able to get Cat.) I just wanted to make sure it was clear, generally speaking, that the answer is as much about immunity only protecting from direct effects as it is about the application of a framework event in the specific Cat example.

The base of my reasonning is that "Players cannot declare characters" is pretty much the same as "Characters cannot be declared as defenders". The same way "That player choose and kills a character" is the same as "A character must be choosen and killed by that player".

In both case, characters are mentionned, so directly Immune (not through a modified framework : I just see it as an additional restriction during the framework event initiation).

I gave the exemple of Condemn by the Realm because it similarly requires the player to do something whereas it is just a card effect acting acting on characters. About Pyat Pree I agree, that had been settled in older topics.

Anyway the conclusion is the same (Cat can only be declared alone) except in the rare case you would have 2 characters immune to keywords.

[Ratatoskr 34]

Bolzano said:

 

The base of my reasonning is that "Players cannot declare characters" is pretty much the same as "Characters cannot be declared as defenders". The same way "That player choose and kills a character" is the same as "A character must be choosen and killed by that player".

I don't know. If I say "You can't buy a car", then you're the object of that statement. If I say "Cars can't be bought", then the cars are the object of that statement.

[ktom 598]

Bolzano said:

The base of my reasonning is that "Players cannot declare characters" is pretty much the same as "Characters cannot be declared as defenders". The same way "That player choose and kills a character" is the same as "A character must be choosen and killed by that player".

The fact that the ability is phrased in the passive voice (making the character the subject of the ability) rather than the active voice (making the character the subject of the ability) does make a difference, though, despite the fact that the practical result (the character doesn't get into the challenge) is the same. This is because of the "direct effect" aspect of immunity. It's another aspect of the fact that the game is driven by the text, not the "meaning" or the "intention."

Not to be a complete pain on this, but the fact that "players cannot declare defenders in the current challenge" is different from "characters cannot be declared as defenders in the current challenge" are different as far as character immunity is concerned is an old, settled issue. The reasons given here are straight from FFG.

[Bolzano2 0]

ok, I didn't know it had been settled by FFG already.

So in the end Cat' is not immune to Joust (but it doesn't really matter except if you play Jaqen or Flaming sword...)

Thanks!

[Ikaros 0]

ktom said:

 

Mathias Fricot said:

I guess she can still die to deadly then, right? since that isn't the character interacting with her, its part of the challenge framework?

Deadly is no more a part of the challenge framework than Vengeful or Vigilant is. Passive effects activated by the resolution of a challenge are not actually part of the game effects that define how a challenge is resolved.

 

Deadly is a (passive) card effect that is initiated by the resolution of a challenge. When it resolves, a character is chosen and killed - directly by the card effect. Therefore, as a card effect that acts directly on a character when it resolves, Cat's "immune to card effects" protects her from Deadly. It protects her from Stealth, too (which is still considered a card effect, not a game effect, even though the timing of its resolution is dictated by a framework event; just because there is a framework event that says "resolve Stealth now" does not make Stealth a game effect instead of a card effect).

 

 

I'm having a really hard time trying to understand this. Where is the line between "card effect" and "game mechanics"?

"Deadly" is written on the card, right, but this is not sufficient alone to determine if deadly is a card effect or a game mechanic.

Only characters with an Intrigue icon can be declared attackers or defenders during an Intrigue challenge. This, I believe, is a game mechanic, not a card effetc. But the Intrigue icon is printed on the card.

Both the ruling for declaring an attackar or handling deadly are written in the Coreset Rules. I mean, the explaination for deadly is not printed on the character, is printed in the rulebook. As it goes for the icons and the claim.

One may say that what is "inside the text box" (speaking of characters) is a card effect. But also the ability of Pyatt Pree is written inside the text box, so this is not yet sufficient.

You said that Pyat's one is a card effect, that then modifies a game mechanic (claim), that then targets Cat. Ok. So, finally, what seemed to me to be the rule is "If the card effect changes a PRE-EXISTING game mechanic, Cat can be affected. If the card effect ADD A NEW mechanic, Cat cannot be affected". Could it be right?

Please note that "deadly" does not target directly Cat in any way. It works exactly like Claim: If (condition), then the player must choose and kill one of his [defending] character.

Moreover, WHEN a character with renown has to be rewarded? In the coreset rule, only "after the challenge resolves" is written. Relying only upon keyword rule, one has to reward renown with the other passives, at step E, not step D. So, here, game mechanic at least interfere with keywords.

Another thing....

And what if the attacker has 2 deadly attacking characters and the defender has 1 deadly defending charaters? Cat of the Canals is immune to OPPONENT card effect, while deadly seems to me a more global thing to check. In this situation, the opponent's cards are NOT THE ONLY ONES which lead to the "deadly effects".

I hope you get my points. I'm *NOT telling you're wrong. I'm just saying I'm have a great difficoult to understand this.

I'm sorry. I'm sorry to continuously bother you. And I'm sorry that writing in english causes me a lot of troubles to make myself clear. But I love this game and I hate this ruling system

[Bomb 66]

Keywords are card effects.  Deadly is a keyword. 

There are framework events and steps enforcing certain keywords.  Is Stealth a game mechanic because it has its own window of being enforced? 
The following keywords are used against character:

Deadly
Stealth
Intimidate

If keywords are considered game mechanics and not card effects, then so are Responses, Any Phase, When Revealed, and other cards that have framework and player action windows.  They still need to be on a card to be triggered as an effect.  Also, Deadly as an example, is used during the Passive effects step in Challenge resolution.  Passive effects are still effects.  There are no specific game mechanics that are done inside that window.

Icons is not necessarily a good example of a card effect because all they are are properties of a character card.  They allow the character to participate in specific challenges and are also used as a checked condition for certain effects. 

Specifically, a card effect is something one card can do to the game state or another card.  Basically, any printed text on the card is considered a card effect. 

Cat O' Canals is immune to any opponents card effects.  This means absolutely everything printed on an opponents card that can directly affect characters.  Pyat Pree changes how claim(a game mechanic) is resolved.  Pyat Pree does nothing specifically to a character.  Because claim is not a card effect, it can be used as a way to kill Cat O' Canal.

Basically, claim can be manipulated by card effects, but claim still remains a game mechanic that is resolved in Challenge Resolution.  Otherwise, I think Cat O' Canals will be immune to claim changes from Twist of Fate, Northern Coursier(and the other warhorses that change claim), Double Bluff, The Red Vengeance, etc.

Another point -

Game mechanics are outlined specifically as rules on how you play the game and how you can use cards to play the game.  Card effects are what cards in the game do or can do to the state of the game, to other cards in play, or to players of the game.

[ktom 598]

Bomb said:

Game mechanics are outlined specifically as rules on how you play the game and how you can use cards to play the game.  Card effects are what cards in the game do or can do to the state of the game, to other cards in play, or to players of the game.

Looking at it in yet another way, card effects are things that happen in the game because a particular card is there telling you to do it. Game mechanics/effects are things that happen in the game because the rules tell you to do it - whether any particular card or card text is present or not.

Don't make the mistake of thinking that because only the word "Deadly" appears on the card, with a full explanation for what to do when the word "Deadly" appears on a card sitting in the rule book, that the full resolution is not a card effect. You need a card with the word "Deadly" on it before the effect even exists in the game. This is not true for declaring characters with the appropriate icon as an attacker or defender. That will always need to heed that rule when declaring a challenge, no matter what other cards or effects are present.

See the difference? Deadly is a card effect, even though the full explanation for how to resolve it is provided in the rule book, because you never even consider it until a card with the word "Deadly" shows up in the game. Claim is not a card effect because you will have to consider it no matter what cards show up in the game.

Your idea of "pre-existing" with Cat works well enough, but it works because immunity only protects from things that work directly on the immune card.

(Deadly - and military claim for that matter - works directly on the character they choose, btw. The character is chosen and then killed because that effect is initiating/resolving. It doesn't matter who is doing the choosing, only what is chosen - and what happens as a result. Deadly is different from claim in that claim initiates and resolves because the game says so; Deadly initiates and resolves because there is a card that says so. That's why Cat is not immune to claim, but is immune to Deadly.)