Burning Bridges Plot / gained abilities

[Nikator 0]

I assume that gained abilities (which are gained by non-triggering effects or not by character, location or attachment) are not affected? Because the wording is "on"?

Especially duplicates may still be used?

[doulos2k 26]

Yes. Burning Bridges does not affect gained text. Dupes can still be used to save a character. 

[-Istaril 157]

Yes. Burning Bridges does not affect gained text. Dupes can still be used to save a character. 

 

Probably more detail than is needed, but there's an interesting "exception" (it isn't an exception); self-referrential gained abilities. A perfect example is Maester Murenmure, whose conditional constant grants him a response in the marshalling phase. In this case, while the triggered effect *is* printed on the card, it's still a gained ability and is not affected by Burning Bridges.

[doulos2k 26]

Istaril - that's an important, and often forgotten, detail.

[mdc273 29]

I still am baffled by the logic for this ruling. Where is the gained ability if not on the card? It must be somewhere.

[radiskull 39]

The triggered ability is gained. The ability "on" the card is not itself a triggered ability, so Burning Bridges doesn't affect it.

[doulos2k 26]

Istaril - that's an important, and often forgotten, detail.

 

Case in point... Istaril's comment was actually necessary...

 

I still am baffled by the logic for this ruling. Where is the gained ability if not on the card? It must be somewhere.

 

Radiskull states it pretty clearly... but to spell it out a bit further. Burning Bridges says "Players cannot trigger abilities on character, location, and attachment cards in play." It has been ruled that the "on" for this plot means "printed on." The FAQ makes clear that when something negates "printed" text, it does not affect "gained" text.

 

Murenmure's ability is a passive, so Burning Bridges does not affect his ability. He passively adds text to himself during the Marshaling phase. So, during the Marshaling phase, his triggered ability is technically a GAINED ability and is, therefore, not affected by Burning Bridges.

[Khudzlin 734]

Murenmure's ability is a constant, not a passive. A passive would read "At the beginning of the marshalling phase, Maester Murenmure gains 'blah blah blah' until the end of the phase.

The difference is that:

1. A passive ability has a point of initiation and can conceivably be cancelled (by an effect such as Maester Kerwin's or Wildling Wisewoman's), while a constant ability has no point of initiation and cannot be cancelled (because you cancel effects just after they initiate).
2. Once a passive ability has resolved, gaining immunity to it is useless, it has already been applied. But gaining immunity to a constant ability at any time makes it cease to apply.

Burning Bridges doesn't affect constant abilities either, only triggered abilities.

[Bomb 66]

I still am baffled by the logic for this ruling. Where is the gained ability if not on the card? It must be somewhere.

 

The only reason I don't like this ruling is because I never even had a doubt as to what Burning Bridges did until someone actually posted on here that it worked in that manner.  To me, it is not a Frequently Asked Question, but it requires clarification in the FAQ so that the card is used properly.

[Sttyca 20]

This also begs the question on a slightly related thread...

 

If you use Murenmure's gained ability from his constant, can someone then use a "cancel... triggered effect..." to negate him, like a seasick or (if Burning Bridges is not out) Allanys Greyjoy?

[radiskull 39]

Of course - the gained ability is still a triggered effect. It's just not a triggered effect "on" Murenmure.

 

(p.s. "begs the question" does not mean the same thing as "raises the question". /philosophypedant)

[mdc273 29]

No. I mean like in a literal sense. If the ability is not "on" the card. Where is it? It has to be "on" something in play otherwise it can't be triggered. Is there a game concept where gained abilities actually go. What is the "gained ability" a property of?

 

My struggle is with the choice of the word "on" for the card effect. Why did they choose it over "printed on" which is much clearer and would not really foster this, "What does 'on mean?", question I'm asking.

[radiskull 39]

I agree that the wording on Burning Bridges is problematic. This is why I hope, after FFG does something with CardgameDB, that they'll give their old cards a templating pass and can have "most current printing" text on all of the cards online, that they can keep updated at all times.

[doulos2k 26]

Agreed. It's only an FFG ruling that tells us it means "printed on" in this specific case.

[ktom 598]

No. I mean like in a literal sense. If the ability is not "on" the card. Where is it? It has to be "on" something in play otherwise it can't be triggered. Is there a game concept where gained abilities actually go. What is the "gained ability" a property of?

 

I think you're making it more complicated than it needs to be. A "gained" ability is still considered to be an ability of the card that gains it, so it is a "property" of that card. What it is not, however, is a printed property of the card it is "on." We deal with that concept all the time. It's no different than Eddard Stark, for example, gaining an INT icon through a card effect. It is his icon, but it is not "on" him in the printed sense; it is not one of his "printed" icons.

 

The ruling tells us that "cannot trigger abilities on" cards should be interpreted as not being able to trigger the card's "printed abilities." It's no different from blanking effects only wiping out a card's printed text box. Granted, it would be considerably easier if they had used the "printed" templating (which is considerably better defined), but the ruling itself doesn't really introduce any new concepts.

Edited September 6, 2013 by ktom

[mdc273 29]

What makes you say it's a ruling? I see it as a single card clarification in the Questions section. If it were an actual ruling, wouldn't it be included in a numbered section?

[radiskull 39]

What makes you say it's a ruling? I see it as a single card clarification in the Questions section. If it were an actual ruling, wouldn't it be included in a numbered section?

Not necessarily.  I don't see why you're trying so hard not to accept this card interpretation.

[ktom 598]

What makes you say it's a ruling? I see it as a single card clarification in the Questions section. If it were an actual ruling, wouldn't it be included in a numbered section?

 

So, for example... 

 

 

 

"If an opponent plays Misinformation, can I play a second copy in response to the first?

Yes. The first Misinformation cancels the game's standard determination of challenge winner, and creates its own. The second Misinformation would cancel this new determination, replacing it with its own."

 

...only applies to Misinformation? Meaning that if Feigned Retreat or True Power is played, a second could not cancel the first because this is "a single card clarification" and isn't "included in a numbered section"?

 

Or how about...

 

"When I reveal Summoning Season who chooses to search and reveal their character first?

Whenever an effect requires multiple players to choose targets or reveal cards simultaneously the controller of the effect always resolves the entire effect first and the other players resolve the effect in a clockwise order."

 

... that entry is a single card clarification and the order for cards like Building Season, Drunken Allegations, and Called to Court remain undefined?

 

(And so on.)

 

From examples like this, I think it's pretty clear that the entries in the "Frequently Asked Questions" part of the FAQ document are general rulings and that, while often explained in the context of a particular card, combination, or example, should be applied to similar cards, combinations, or examples.

[mdc273 29]

Yes. That's my point, Ktom. Compare it to the obviously generic response to one of the first FAQ questions which is obviously meant to apply to a broad selection of effects:

 

"If my character loses a military icon in the middle of a military challenge, is that character removed from the challenge? No. Once a character is in a challenge, it can only be removed from that challenge by an effect that specifically removes the character from a challenge, an effect that removes the character from play, or by an effect that changes control of that character. Gaining or losing icons mid-challenge does not affect the attacking or defending status of that character."

 

Why would they intentionally leave this as generic, but for Burning Bridges effect make it specific to Burning Bridges if the ruling was meant to be a generic response to a broad class of card. If it was meant to be a broad response, it should've been worded like:

 

"Does Burning Bridges (Queen of Dragons F49) prevent a duplicate from being used to save a character?
Burning Bridges reads, "Players cannot trigger abilities on character, location, and attachment cards in play." 'Abilities on character, location, and attachment cards in play' is common phrasing used to denote triggered abilities printed on cards. Because the saves granted by duplicates is a "gained" ability rather than a printed one Burning Bridges does not have any effect on them.

 

Note my modified phrasing in bold.

 

Why do you assume that the obviously generic phrasing for many of the first wave of questions does not reflect that the specificity of the Burning Bridges and similar later questions are not intended to be specific to those cards?

 

@Radiskull - I have no problem with the card interpretation. I have problems when I can't explain the reasoning behind the card interpretation and I can not currently explain the reasoning behind the card interpretation other than "that's the way it is".

Edited September 10, 2013 by mdc273

[ktom 598]

I am not following your train of thought here at all. Are you saying that this FAQ entry should not be applied to any situation that does not include Burning Bridges? Are you trying to say that if another card were printed using the wording "abilities on characters, locations, etc." that the information we have regarding how to interpret Burning Bridges should not be translated or applied to the new card?

 

If so, I fail to see how the entry on Burning Bridges is any less generic than the entry on Misinformation - but we are happy to translate and apply that to similarly worded cards, like Feigned Retreat and True Power. And if we are being that hard-nosed about "specificity" in these entries, I also fail to see why the specific discussion of "duplicates" as a gained abilities is so quickly extended to all gained abilities.

 

I'm really having trouble seeing why you are trying to make a distinction between generic rulings and card-specific rulings. Don't all card-specific rulings become "generic" in similar situations where the exact same issues are in question? Doesn't this entry simply stand for the fact that when a card says "abilities on...," it should be interpreted as "abilities printed on..."?

Edited September 10, 2013 by ktom

[mdc273 29]

Going back to the Burning Bridges text:

 

"Does Burning Bridges (Queen of Dragons F49) prevent a duplicate from being used to save a character?
Burning Bridges [the following sentence is specific to Burning Bridges] reads, "Players cannot trigger abilities on character, location, and attachment cards in play." It [again referring to Burning Bridges] is referring to triggered abilities printed on the cards. Because the saves granted by duplicates is a "gained" ability rather than a printed one  Burning Bridges does not have any effect on them."

 

You'll note that the only actual generic statement in the reply is the final sentence that I italicized. The rest of the statements are explicit to Burning Bridges. It's not a massive jump in logic to apply them generally, but when compared to the other generic responses it raises the question of why most of this response is explicitly referring to Burning Bridges. Compare it to the other one I quoted.

 

"If my character loses a military icon in the middle of a military challenge, is that character removed from the challenge?

No. Once a character is in a challenge, it can only be removed from that challenge by an effect that specifically removes the character from a challenge, an effect that removes the character from play, or by an effect that changes control of that character. Gaining or losing icons mid-challenge does not affect the attacking or defending status of that character."

 

The entirety of this response is generic except for the first sentence. It is asked in a generic way and is obviously implied to be generic. If the Burning Bridges question was meant to be truly generic and not specific to Burning Bridges, I would have expected the subject of the second sentence to be the phrase causing the issue, but instead they chose to refer to the card Burning Bridges instead of the phrase.

 

So the real question is, why is this ruling assumed to apply generically (or any ruling that clearly uses language specific to the card being inquired about) when the language used is specific to Burning Bridges?

 

Oversight by the editor is an acceptable answer, but is that the actual reason or is there some other reason that is explained in detail somewhere else within the rules?