Trying to understand Griff

[Paladinus 0]

Let's say we have thsi scenario:

Griff is attached to my house card as my agenda. I control one "Flame kissed", that is attached to a STR 3 enemy character.

Then, I play a card (doesn't matter which one, actually) that lowers that character STR to 0, so it is killed.

Would Griff be able to trigger his response before being put into play again? And if so, wouldn't he need to save the attachment from its moribund state in order to bring it to your hand?

[Paladinus 0]

Oh, and I forgot to mention that I only control that attachment and, of course, my opponent doesn't control any.

[ktom 598]

Paladinus said:

Would Griff be able to trigger his response before being put into play again? And if so, wouldn't he need to save the attachment from its moribund state in order to bring it to your hand?

Griff would be able to use his Response before being put into play. No matter where the attachment goes (discard pile or back to your hand), it will be moribund, in play, and technically under your control until it leaves play at the end of the action window. So Griff will not actually return to play until Step 4 of the next action window - which is the first opportunity to resolve the passive after the "swing attachment" physically leaves play.

 

Also, conratulations!!! You have recognized what some, but very few, have figured out (at least publicly) since Griff was first spoiled months ago. Griff's Response doesn't work as written! You are correct that it should be worded either as a save or as a replacement effect (using the word "instead" - like the event card "Retreat"). It's obviously a mistake (since there is no way to make it work as written), so your TO can decide how to play it (save or replacement) until FFG comes out with an official errata.

[Paladinus 0]

Thank you so much for the quick response.

[Sulpures 1]

ktom said:

Paladinus said:

Would Griff be able to trigger his response before being put into play again? And if so, wouldn't he need to save the attachment from its moribund state in order to bring it to your hand?

Griff would be able to use his Response before being put into play. No matter where the attachment goes (discard pile or back to your hand), it will be moribund, in play, and technically under your control until it leaves play at the end of the action window. So Griff will not actually return to play until Step 4 of the next action window - which is the first opportunity to resolve the passive after the "swing attachment" physically leaves play.

 

Also, conratulations!!! You have recognized what some, but very few, have figured out (at least publicly) since Griff was first spoiled months ago. Griff's Response doesn't work as written! You are correct that it should be worded either as a save or as a replacement effect (using the word "instead" - like the event card "Retreat"). It's obviously a mistake (since there is no way to make it work as written), so your TO can decide how to play it (save or replacement) until FFG comes out with an official errata.

 

It's written "after……is discarded……", no save effect can be triggerred after the card IS discarded. So I think Griff's ability should be read as a replacement.

[ktom 598]

Sulpures said:

It's written "after……is discarded……", no save effect can be triggerred after the card IS discarded. So I think Griff's ability should be read as a replacement.

I would tend to agree that Griff's Response is supposed to work like a "Retreat" for attachments. Sadly, it does not as written.

[Twn2dn 1]

Maybe the moribund rules should be rethought through at some point in this game. They are at times very counter-intuitive and require consistent templating, which appears to be a challenge for FFG more generally. I sympathize with the templating challenge, given how complex moribund rules can be though.

One suggestion a metamate had was that FFG should institute more keywords that work as descriptors, like MTG does. So rather than writing out "-STR and killed if 0," you might just say the character has "burn" or "Response: After a character comes into play during the challenges phase, this character gains burn non-uniques 1" (for something like Illyrio's ability). Obviously this type of templating would create it's own challenges, but at the very least it'd make things much more consistent and less prone to confusion.

[ktom 598]

Twn2dn said:

One suggestion a metamate had was that FFG should institute more keywords that work as descriptors, like MTG does. So rather than writing out "-STR and killed if 0," you might just say the character has "burn" or "Response: After a character comes into play during the challenges phase, this character gains burn non-uniques 1" (for something like Illyrio's ability). Obviously this type of templating would create it's own challenges, but at the very least it'd make things much more consistent and less prone to confusion.

How would you apply such an idea to make the moribund rules less confusing? (For example, the "burn" illustration doesn't touch on the moribund rules at all.)

[Bomb 66]

ktom said:

I would tend to agree that Griff's Response is supposed to work like a "Retreat" for attachments. Sadly, it does not as written.

 

Just wondering why it does not work as a replacement effect as written?

[KristoffStark 1]

Bomb said:

 

 

 

Just wondering why it does not work as a replacement effect as written?

Lack of the word "instead."

Phrasing it as they did: "Response: After a [Targaryen] attachment you control is discarded from play, kneel 1 influence to return it to your hand." means that what the ability tries to do is change the destination of a moribund card.

[Bomb 66]

KristoffStark said:

 

Lack of the word "instead."

Where in the FAQ or core rules states that that is required to qualify effects as replacement effects?

I figured this was the reason why, but I fail to find anything that confirms that a replacement effects templating requires the term "instead".

[KristoffStark 1]

Bomb said:

 

KristoffStark said:

 

 

Lack of the word "instead."

 

 

Where in the FAQ or core rules states that that is required to qualify effects as replacement effects?

I figured this was the reason why, but I fail to find anything that confirms that a replacement effects templating requires the term "instead".

 

 

Then what differentiates a replacement effect with something trying to alter the destination of a moribund card?

If not hinging on a word like that, where do you draw the line?

If Griff works, as printed (a response to a card leaving play that allows it to leave play differently), as a replacement effect, then so would… lemme see… Meera Reed's ability to return to Shadows when a Stark Character leaves play.  You'd be able to sacrifice her to Wildfire Assault, or anything, and just pop her back into Shadows as a response to her leaving play.

[Bomb 66]

KristoffStark said:

If Griff works, as printed, as a replacement effect, then so would… lemme see… Meera Reed's ability to return to Shadows when another Stark Character leaves play.  You'd be able to sacrifice her to Wildfire Assault, or anything, and just pop her back into Shadows if someone else dies at the same time.

Because Meera Reed's ability does not specifically affect a moribund card like Griff's does.

Griff is -

After X becomes Moribund, do something to X.

Meera Reed is -

After X becomes Moribund, do something to Y.

X can equal Y, but X is not the same variable as Y like it is in Griff's ability.

 

[KristoffStark 1]

Bomb said:

 

KristoffStark said:

 

If Griff works, as printed, as a replacement effect, then so would… lemme see… Meera Reed's ability to return to Shadows when another Stark Character leaves play.  You'd be able to sacrifice her to Wildfire Assault, or anything, and just pop her back into Shadows if someone else dies at the same time.

 

 

Because Meera Reed's ability does not specifically affect a moribund card like Griff's does.

Griff is -

After X becomes Moribund, do something to X.

Meera Reed is -

After X becomes Moribund, do something to Y.

X can equal Y, but X is not the same variable as Y like it is in Griff's ability.

 

 

I want to make sure I understand.
You are effectively saying that any ability that references a specific card becoming moribund, and tries to send that moribund card to another moribund destination should be considered a replacement effect, but a card that references a less specific card becoming moribund should not be, even if that effect is trying to change the moribund destination of a card, and could target the card becoming moribund, yes?

If that is the case, I'm sorry, but that makes a lot less sense to me then assuming (and I will admit it is an inducted conclusion) that the word "instead" which (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong) has been used in every single replacement effect printed to date.

NOTE: Edited for an attempt at greater clarity

[KristoffStark 1]

Forget everything I've just said.  I think this explains it much better.

Okay, we agree that moribund cards cannot have their destinations, changed, right?

From "What is Moribund?"
"Although considered in play, a Moribund card
cannot be removed from play (or targeted to
be removed from play) again by any effect or
any attempt to pay a cost for the remainder of
the action window."

Replacements effects, in order to respect this rule, are phrased "If X would be [moribund:a], it is [moribund:b] instead."  The original moribund destination isn't changed because it is never entered into in the first place!  Like a saved character is never killed.

That's the difference, and that's why Giff is not a replacement effect.

[ktom 598]

Bomb said:

Where in the FAQ or core rules states that that is required to qualify effects as replacement effects?

Moribund Rules Exception, p. 16:

Rules Exception
Although considered in play, a Moribund card cannot be removed from play (or targeted to be removed from play) again by any effect or any attempt to pay a cost for the remainder of the action window. However, the "state" of a Moribund card can be changed by an effect that does not actually attempt to remove it from play a second time.

 

You cannot "assume" it's an effect changes the moribund state just because the card it already moribund. Otherwise, the rules exception would have no meaning. Look at the new Arya Stark ("Response: After a unique STARK character is killed, discard Arya Stark from play (cannot be saved) to choose and kill a character with STR 3 or less."), for example. Let's say you lose a military challenge and decide to kill Arya for claim. She's moribund:dead in Step 3. The construction is a little different, but as far as she, herself, is concerned, she just matched your "After X becomes moribund, do something to X" generalization (albeit with the added "to do something to Y" at the end). So why can't I use her Response to discard her - as a replacement effect - to choose and kill a character? Because of the moribund rules exception, right?

So the "default" interpretation of anything that says "return that card to hand" is a standard attempt to remove a card from play. That means a card effect has to specifically say that it changes the Moribund state - as opposed to attempting to remove a card from play. Griff, as written, doesn't do that. Without the specific replacement effect (ie, "instead"), the assumption that the effect is trying to directly remove the attachment from play kicks in - and stalls at the moribund card.

[Bomb 66]

KristoffStark said:

I want to make sure I understand.
You are effectively saying that any ability that references a specific card becoming moribund, and tries to send that card to another moribund destination should be considered a replacement effect, but a card that references a less specific card should not be, even if that effect is trying to change the moribund destination, and could target the same card, yes?

If that is the case, I'm sorry, but that makes a lot less sense to me then assuming (and I will admit it is an inducted conclusion) that the word "instead" which (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong) has been used in every single replacement effect printed to date.

Meera Reed's effect is not specifically changing the moribund destination like you just suggested. 

Griff's effect is specifically affecting the same moribund card by changing it's moribund destination.  The entire effect revolves around that same Moribund card.

I agree and understand that it would be easier to follow if it had "instead" because then people wouldn't feel like it requires a FAQ entry since it's a commonly accepted template.

My point is that it is only a commonly accepted template that replacement effects use the term "instead" as changing a moribund destination.   I see zero reason why an effect requires the term "instead" if that effect targets(not targets in AGoT LCG terms, but statically is triggered and directly affects card X) a moribund card, specifically because of its moribund destination, and then specifically changes that same card's moribund destination.  You have all the necessary pieces.

My main problem is that the FAQ loosely defines replacement effects in such a way that there is no mention as to how they are defined and there is no mention of it requiring the term "instead".  I get it and I get why it is looked at in such a way, but I just don't see the necessity of it in this case.

[KristoffStark 1]

Bomb said:

 

Griff's effect is specifically affecting the same moribund card by changing it's moribund destination.  The entire effect revolves around that same Moribund card.

I agree and understand that it would be easier to follow if it had "instead" because then people wouldn't feel like it requires a FAQ entry since it's a commonly accepted template.

My point is that it is only a commonly accepted template that replacement effects use the term "instead" as changing a moribund destination.   I see zero reason why an effect requires the term "instead" if that effect targets(not targets in AGoT LCG terms, but statically is triggered and directly affects card X) a moribund card, specifically because of its moribund destination, and then specifically changes that same card's moribund destination.  You have all the necessary pieces.

My main problem is that the FAQ loosely defines replacement effects in such a way that there is no mention as to how they are defined and there is no mention of it requiring the term "instead".  I get it and I get why it is looked at in such a way, but I just don't see the necessity of it in this case.

 

 

"Instead" is required because the Moribund section of the FAQ leaves no room for ANY effect to change the destination of a Moribund card.  Period.

"Instead" changes it so that the original Moribund destination never applied.  It does this by replacing it with another.

Griff does not do this, he attempts to Respond to the card becoming Moribund, and then change its destination, which the FAQ expressly forbids.

[Bomb 66]

ktom said:

 

You cannot "assume" it's an effect changes the moribund state just because the card it already moribund. Otherwise, the rules exception would have no meaning. Look at the new Arya Stark ("Response: After a unique STARK character is killed, discard Arya Stark from play (cannot be saved) to choose and kill a character with STR 3 or less."), for example. Let's say you lose a military challenge and decide to kill Arya for claim. She's moribund:dead in Step 3. The construction is a little different, but as far as she, herself, is concerned, she just matched your "After X becomes moribund, do something to X" generalization (albeit with the added "to do something to Y" at the end). So why can't I use her Response to discard her - as a replacement effect - to choose and kill a character? Because of the moribund rules exception, right?

My generalization is nothing like the Arya Stark example.  I am not speaking in terms of X and Y being the cost or effect.   X is the card that became moribund, and the trigger to the effect is X becoming Moribund.  If the trigger to the effect is that X became moribund, and the effect itself is to change the moribund destination, then that satisfies as a replacement effect for moribund destinations without the need of "instead".

"However, the "state" of a
Moribund card can be changed by an effect
that does not actually attempt to remove it
from play a second time."

I get what you are saying with this.  You are saying that the effect triggers on one attempt to discard the attachment from play and the effect itself is removing it an additional time.  I guess that makes sense if the attachment technically did not hit the discard pile yet.

[KristoffStark 1]

Bomb said:

 

I get what you are saying with this.  You are saying that the effect triggers on one attempt to discard the attachment from play and the effect itself is removing it an additional time.  I guess that makes sense if the attachment technically did not hit the discard pile yet.

 

 

And if it has hit the discard pile already, you've missed the opportunity to Respond to it being discarded.  There's no response window once the framework is closed and the card has physcially left play.

[Sulpures 1]

 Griff's response ability is such an effect that "does not actually attempt to remove it from play a second time". It returns the attachment to your hand instead while the card is going to the dicard pile, though there's no "instead" on the card. 

[Khudzlin 734]

The biggest problem with Griff, however, is that in a Targaryen deck without attachments (Flame-Kissed doesn't count, because it doesn't stay), he comes back into play, again and again, standing (and triggering Illyrio's response each and every time). And if you manage to discard him or blank him before killing him, he can come back with Ambush from the Plains or To Be a Dragon…

[ktom 598]

Sulpures said:

Griff's response ability is such an effect that "does not actually attempt to remove it from play a second time". It returns the attachment to your hand instead while the card is going to the dicard pile, though there's no "instead" on the card.

And yet, every other effect in the game must specifically say it is working with a card that is either already moribund or not in play? The rules we have say that unless otherwise specified, effects only work on cards that are in play. They also say that moribund cards are considered "in play" unless the effect involves removing them from play (by cost or effect). So the rules FFG has put forward says that if you are going to going to "return the attachment to your hand instead while the card is going to the discard pile," you have to specifically say that; no part of it can be assumed without ignoring one or both of those rules (only "in play" cards; "moribund" is not "in play" when it comes to going to out-of-play areas).

It's not what Griff's response is supposed to do that is in question - it is the fact that by the standards of templating and interpretation that the game normally uses, the text doesn't do it! "Oh, you know what I mean" doesn't get it done in this game.

I'm not saying that people should play the card as if it doesn't work. Quite the contrary - play it as if it were worded correctly since it is one of those obvious mistakes. But know the mistake, too.

Khudzlin said:

The biggest problem with Griff, however, is that in a Targaryen deck without attachments (Flame-Kissed doesn't count, because it doesn't stay), he comes back into play, again and again, standing…

Why just in a Targaryen deck? For 5-gold, a 3-STR tricon Noble that effectively boils down to "stand to soak claim - permanently" seems like a pretty good deal to me, Illyrio or not.

[Shenanigans8 1]

ktom said:

Why just in a Targaryen deck? For 5-gold, a 3-STR tricon Noble that effectively boils down to "stand to soak claim - permanently" seems like a pretty good deal to me, Illyrio or not.

 

This; ever since we chatted about Griff at the Chicago regional, I've been considering which decks Griff would be useful in by your evaluation. So far, the answer is "almost every deck."

Sorry to threadjack; please continue.

[KristoffStark 1]

Sulpures said:

 Griff's response ability is such an effect that "does not actually attempt to remove it from play a second time". It returns the attachment to your hand instead while the card is going to the dicard pile, though there's no "instead" on the card. 

But it is.  Being returned to hand is being removed from play.

I'm with ktom in that it was obviously intended to be a replacement effect.  But the fact remains that it isn't worded that way.