Sooooo...can she? In the faq is says that everything in a card's text box is a card ability, except traits, keywords, and flavor text. Also it seems that the stealthy and the deadly come more from the rules themselves, rather than from the keywords. In the rules it says for every character you have attacking in a challenge with stealth you can choose a character without stealth controlled by the defending player and that character can not be declared as a defender. It doesn't seem like Stealth itself is doing anything. Or am I just being too technical here and she really is just untouchable?

Correct; keywords do not count as card ABILITIES.

However, they do count as card EFFECTS.

Keywords may be defined in the rules text, but they only apply to a situation if they are written on a card involved in the situation. So they're not like, say, claim or standing in the standing phase. Those things happen regardless of what cards are involved. But keywords like stealth and deadly only initiate (and resolve) when a CARD that has them are involved. Granted, you need to rules to tell you how/when to initiate and resolve them, but the fact that they apply in a given situation is all card-driven, not rules driven. They are clearly card effects.

Cat is immune to opponent's card EFFECTS. Period. So she is immune to keywords, too. Essentially, if it is written on a card, she's immune to it.

OK, fair enough, but then what about claim replacement? That effects the claim and she can definitely die from claim. No matter if its regular claim or if its venom in the cup, right? And just for the record, this is alot less about Cat of the Canals and more about Immune to Card Effects in general.

Claim replacement works on Cat for the same reason Venom in the Cup always worked on event and triggered effect immune characters - it doesn't act directly on them. It works on how claim is resolved, which in turn works on the character. Immunity only protects from direct effects. As always, you'd have to be immune to claim in order to be immune to an "assassination" claim.

(~ And that's not so much about "immune to card effects" as it is immunity in general.)

ahhh alright. I thought so, but was just making sure. My rules FU is rusty. Also, I said the bit about the immunity not cat so that I didn't have a million people saying, "All you have to do is just kill her with a military challenge if you are having so many problems!" like they did for ITE Arianne.

Staton said:

~ So the answer to such nay-sayers is "kill her with claim? what a good idea! why didn't I think of that before asking how she worked with claim replacement effect?"

bah! you and your sarcasm, Ktom!

You know, I remember being confused by this line of reasoning when it first appeared a few months ago. In particular, I don't know how to extend it to other situations:

If I understand the reasoning correctly, it goes something like this: Venom in the Cup does not affect Cat directly. Instead, it affects the game mechanic "claim." (Specifically, the card says "If you win the challenge, instead of the normal claim effects, choose and kill a character controlled by the losing opponent.") The game mechanic "claim" then affects Cat, but she's not immune to game mechanics, so she dies. Did I get that right?

Now instead of Venom in the Cup, let's look at The Fox's Teeth. ("While The Fox's Teeth is attacking, knelt characters may be declared as defenders. While The Fox's Teeth is attacking, only knelt characters may be declared as defenders.") On Tzumainn's site, ktom indicated that he felt this card affects characters directly, so characters with relevant immunity can be immune to it.

What is the core difference here? On the surface, The Fox's Teeth appears to be modifying a game mechanic (the declaration of defenders) in a manner similar to Venom in the Cup. So if I had only read these forums, and hadn't noticed the discussion on Tzumainn, I would have assumed that Cat can be affected by Fox's Teeth (indirectly), just as she's affected by Venom in the Cup (indirectly).

Perhaps the difference stems from the use of the words "instead of" in the text for Venom in the Cup. Or perhaps it's some other difference between the two cards that I haven't puzzled out yet. Or is it an idiosyncratic thing that stems primarily from prior rulings on Venom in the Cup?

Anyone got enlightenment to pass around?

Arma virumque said:

This is, in fact, the ultimate reason. The "instead of" wording indicates that Venom in the Cup is a replacement effect. In the FAQ, replacement effects are specifically said to change a part of the framework of the game. Hence the understanding that the way the framework event "Challenge result is implemented" is modified by the replacement effect, which then resolves as indicated by the replacement effect.

Fox's Teeth, on the other hand, is not a replacement effect. It is not actually changing the way the framework event "Defending player kneels defending characters" resolves. It doesn't change who, when or how a player is allowed to declare defenders. Rather, it changes which characters are eligible to be declared as defenders. So it is character status (in terms of eligibility for defense) that is changed, not the framework of the game related to how challenges are defended.

Perhaps that line of reasoning would be easier to see with a different example. Take the Stark character Ser Rodrik Cassel. He has a passive ability that says he does not kneel to defend when he is declared as a defender. Is his ability changing the way the game works as a whole related to declaring defenders just because he doesn't kneel like everyone else when he defends? No. Rather, his ability is changing the way he himself behaves when declared as a defender. Fox's Teeth is really the same thing. Rather than changing the way the game works as a whole related to defending characters, it simply changes the way that characters behave when declared as defenders during challenges in which he is attacking.

So yes, you have the reasoning down as to why Venom in the Cup does not act directly on an immune character like Cat of the Canals. The only thing that seems to have tripped you up with Fox's Teeth is the difference between a replacement effect (which changes the framework of the game) and other effects that change the way characters behave within the existing framework. That is not always an easy distinction to make since the end results can look very similar. The real clue here is that Venom in the Cup uses the "instead of normal claim" wording (indicating a different way for claim itself to resolve) and Fox's Teeth uses a "characters may" wording (indicating that the restrictions are being put directly on the characters).

Said another way, Venom in the Cup changes the game's framework (claim) so that it interacts with the characters differently. The direct action is on claim. Fox's Teeth changes the characters so that they interact with the game's framework differently. The direct action is on the characters. In both situations, game progress is ultimately determined by an interaction between framework and character, but where the restrictions are placed in order to change that ultimate outcome is different, which makes all the difference when it comes to immunity.

Hope that makes some sense.

Thank you for the detailed response. I read the section in the FAQ related to "replacement effects," and looked up the cards mentioned in both FAQs as examples. I see now what you were saying, that the word "instead" appears to be a clear indicator that something is a replacement effect. That's something I'll watch for.

However, I'm having a harder time with the assumption that the inverse argument must be true (i.e., that without the word "instead," it can't be a replacement effect). I'll use the Hound as an example, since the LCG FAQ points to him specifically. His text says "If The Hound is killed, place him in your discard pile instead of your dead pile." But what if the text had said simply, "If The Hound is killed, place him in your discard pile"? Since he can't go into both the dead pile and the discard pile, the game effect would be identical. Could it really be true that the first example (with the word "instead") would be a replacement effect, but the second example would not? Therefore, it seems at least possible that a card could be considered a replacement effect without the word "instead."

At this point, you're probably thinking "Trust me" (which I do) or "Based on my experience, the game designers intend the inverse argument to be always true" (which would be lovely) or simply, "This just doesn't come up very often, so stop worrying about it!" I would accept any of those responses as resolving the issue.

My problem now is that if the absence of the word "instead" can't be relied on as a bright-line test, the argument about what constitutes a replacement effect and what does not becomes very muddy. In that regard I have additional thoughts/questions about Fox's Teeth and the definition of a "framework event," in response to your comments, but I have to confess that they're a chaotic mess. I'll keep working on the issue in my own head, and may post again later if I can phrase them intelligently and decide they're worth bothering you further.

Thanks for your patience.

Arma virumque said:

Well, let me ask you this. The FAQ says that in order for an effect to have a target, the text must include the word "choose." So when a character like Ser Ilyn Payne says to "choose and kill a character with STR 2 or lower," the dead character is considered to be a target of the effect. However, an attachment like Demon's Dance that simply says "kill attached character," the dead character is not considered to be a target of the effect. So wording choice can indeed change the definitions regardless of the fact that the game effect is identical. A similar thing happens with "triggered effect" and "passive effect." People often have trouble believing that passive effects, which are "triggered" by some set of play restrictions becoming true, are not considered "triggered effects" by game definition.

The trick, of course, is that the word "instead" is not a formal part of the definition of a replacement effect the way that the word "choose" is a formal part of the definition of a target or a player's specific decision to initiate an effect is a formal part of the definition of "triggered effects." Sadly, not everything is that clear.

BTW: the question isn't so much "would The Hound still be considered a replacement effect if his effect didn't use the word 'instead?'" Rather, the question should be "would the company ever print a replacement effect like The Hound without the word 'instead?'" Even though, from a language point of view, it may be possible to have a replacement effect without the word "instead," what we really need to know is if from a AGoT card template point of view, there are replacement effects that do not use the word "instead."

In the end, it isn't really about "trust me," "based on my experience" or "don't sweat the outliers." It's about direct interaction and figuring out which "entity" in the game a particular effect is applied to. You determine that by figuring out what the subject of the effect is. Here are a couple of good examples:

- Jhalabar Xho's effect says "Opponent's characters cannot claim power for renown." What is the subject of this effect? Characters, right? So this effect is applied to the characters themselves. An additional restriction is placed on the characters, not on the game rules that define Renown, the framework event for when it is resolved or the opponent's who execute those rules and timing. Because the effect refers directly to what the characters may or may not do (in this case, claim power for Renown), it is applied to the characters themselves. (And, incidentally, if Cat had Renown then, as an immune character, she would ignore this effect that is trying to apply itself to her as a character.)

- King Robert's Host says "While King Robert's Host is standing, opponents cannot initiate power challenges against you." What is the subject of this effect? Opponents, right? So this effect is applied to your opponents, not to their characters. An additional restriction is placed on the choices your opponents may make when declaring a challenge type against you, not on the game rules for declaring challenges, the framework events for initiating a challenge or the cards that could, ultimately, be used when a challenge is declared. Because the effect refers directly to what an opponent may or may not do (in this case, initiate power challenges against you), it is applied to the opponent instead of their cards. (And, incidentally, Cat would not be able to initiate a power challenge against a player with card standing because the restriction is placed on what her controller; she can't ignore it for her controller.)

So that s the reasoning you want to apply when looking for differences between Venom in the Cup and The Fox's Teeth:

- Fox's Teeth says "While The Fox's Teeth is attacking, only knelt character s may be declared as defenders." As such, it is applying the restriction to the characters directly (limiting what the player can ultimately do with them.) The implied "by their controller" is not sufficient to say that the effect is being applied directly to the player, even though it is not necessarily easy to separate the character (and its restrictions) from the game framework that actually allows the player to do said manipulating.

- Venom in the cup says "If you win the challenge, instead of the normal claim effects , choose and kill a character controlled by the losing opponent." As such, it is applying a different definition for resolution directly to the claim effects. Since the effect is applied to the claim effects, not to the character.

So a couple more ways to look at it. I look forward to hearing your thoughts/questions on Fox's Teeth when you have tamed the chaos to your liking.

As always, many thanks for your tireless typing....

You anticipated my objection about the word "instead" not being a formal part of the definition of a replacement effect. And you asked the same question I had in my own mind: Namely, in the absence of a formal definition, has the company ever printed (or would it ever print) a card with a replacement effect without the word 'instead'? In the end, this question becomes circular, because it depends on the definition of a replacement effect. If I were left to my own devices, I would have to conclude "maybe," because I viewed the use of the word "instead" not as a marker for a specific rule, but rather as the most efficient way of communicating the desired outcome in the cards that I've reviewed. (And I'll be the first to admit that I've seen only a fraction of the relevant cards.)

Although I know you don't like it, this is where your auctoritas comes into play. (Sorry, I couldn't think of a good English word here -- the word I'm using is a combination of prestige, reputation, and authority -- but informal authority, not formal authority.) The rules and the card templates are more like case law than computer code, and case law isn't always clear-cut. You imply, although you don't state it, that you believe the word "instead" is dependable as both a positive and negative indicator for replacement effect status. If that's your opinion, then I place more weight on your considered judgment than on my speculative musing, and I consider myself satisfied.

So in the end, although I know this drives you crazy, some questions are most effectively resolved by arguments that boil down to "trust me" or "based on my experience." You won't make those arguments yourself, but they're indirectly present in every argument you make, and surely you won't begrudge us their acceptance?

As for your comments about carefully examining the subject of the verb in the card text, I thank you for that. That's a deep rule insight that I hope will help in many areas.

Have a great day.