One question we had during the European championship was: Is Claret Knight immune to indirect triggered effects (effects that target the player and oblige him to do something on one of his character like Temple of R'lyeh or Initiate of Huang Hun or Echanted Wood + Deranged Diva )

If I quote the FAQ on immune (2.36)

Some cards have the card text “Immune to X” in their text boxes. This means that they cannot be targeted by cards with that subtype and/or card type. This also means that if a card with that subtype and card type does not target a specific character, but affects all characters or a group of characters, these cards ignores that effect. A character can never be immune to its own effects.

It could be understood as "if you don't specifically target the card, then immunity doesn't work".

When FFG designed Claret knight, did you intend to immune it against any type of triggered effects ( Bold word : XXX) and may be we need to modify/complete the immune part in FAQ? Or did you plan to protect him only against specific target triggered effects and indirect triggered effect could work?

still no answer ?

I'm pretty sure you cannot choose the Claret Knight to be sacrificed when your opponent triggers the Temple of R'lyeh. Imho, that's precisely what the third sentence you quoted is meant to describe:

The Temple's effect affects all of your characters, exempting Claret Knight, since he's immune to triggered effects.

So, you must choose a different character to be sacrificed and if Claret Knight is your only character in play, you'rer lucky, since you don't have to sacrifice anything.

And that last sentence was specifically added because of a question about Claret Knight!

Ok but in the end, you didn't really answer why

Our issue is that with current rules if you're not in a case where a card targets another card (" they cannot be targeted by cards" ), immunity doesn't work. In all these scenario, you target the player not the card, and after a player chooses a card so how claret knight is immune?

Is a player considered as a card?

Ok but in the end, you didn't really answer why

Our issue is that with current rules if you're not in a case where a card targets another card (" they cannot be targeted by cards" ), immunity doesn't work. In all these scenario, you target the player not the card, and after a player chooses a card so how claret knight is immune?

Is a player considered as a card?

Oh, I did answer why. It's because of the third sentence. Let me quote it again:

This also means that if a card with that subtype and card type does not target a specific character, but affects all characters or a group of characters, these cards ignores that effect

In other words: Cards that are immune to triggered effects are even immune against triggered effects that don't target anything, a group of cards, all cards, or just the opposing player. For them it's as if the effect was never triggered, they simply cannot be chosen to be affected.

Spanish community sent to Damon these asks some time ago:

One of our main problems is The Claret Knight , a card that appears in everyone's deck as the immunity (as we play it) is brutal, and causes a lot of trouble among our community... Could you explain in detail how it works?

These are some of the problematic situations we have found:

• 1) What happens when my opponent plays Many Angled Thing and I only control a Claret Knight ? In this case the triggered effect targets a player, not a card
  
  2) If my opponent triggers the Temple of R'lyeh and I have to sacrifice a character, can I choose my Claret Knight ?
  
  3) Some effects don't have a specific target, as in The Plague Stone . Would The Claret Knight be immune to The Plague Stone as well?

If The Claret Knight is immune to anything that comes after a Bold word: , the only way to get rid of it would be winning a combat struggle or using a card with a passive effect (such as Stygian Eye to take control of it, or Frozen Time to blank its text) , is that right?

The answer

Indeed, any triggered effect that targets a character cannot target The Claret Knight and any triggered effect that is un-targeted is ignored by The Claret Knight. The only way to directly affect The Claret Knight with card effects is through passives or a triggered effect that creates a lasting condition that alters the game rules in some fashion (for example, a card effect that changes how the Combat struggle is resolved and lets me choose which of my opponent’s characters to wound at a story if I win, rather then him, would let me wound The Clare Knight because that affect is resolving on the Challenge Struggle itself not the character, and by the time the Combat struggle is being resolved that effect has already resolved).

• 1) An effect that forces a player to choose a character to sacrifice is still targeting The Claret Knight (it says who does the choosing, but The Claret Knight is still the thing that would have to be chosen so it would ignore the effect).
  
  2) An effect that chooses a player and forces them to do something would still be a targeted effect trying to resolve on The Claret Knight which he would then ignore.
  
  3) Just like with 2, The Claret Knight ignores triggered effects, regardless of how it would try to be applied to him.

It should be noted that because The Claret Knight would ignores all of the effect, other characters would have to be chosen if at all possible, and if there was no other character to be chosen, the effect still is ignored by The Claret Knight.

I hope that helps

I think word "immunity" is too powerful. It is a pity, and a scar to this game, that some cards are immune to any triggered effect. I think will be better if sacrifice a character o indirect effect could affect Claret Knight

Sectario.

Thanks marcoa!

Damons answer also seems to clarify another issue for me. I was wondering if a character with the 'Disc of Itzamna' was also protected from effects that do not directly target a character. It says:

Attached character cannot be the target of triggered effects.

Thanks marcoa!

Damons answer also seems to clarify another issue for me. I was wondering if a character with the 'Disc of Itzamna' was also protected from effects that do not directly target a character. It says:

Attached character cannot be the target of triggered effects.

Damons answer definitely implies, that the character would indeed be protected. Neat!

Sorry jhaelen, but I don't think that's right.

The Claret Knight is immune to triggered effects. Consquently Damon's answer is in two parts for The Claret Knight (numbering added for clarity) --

i) Indeed, any triggered effect that targets a character cannot target The Claret Knight and

ii) any triggered effect that is un-targeted is ignored by The Claret Knight.

Disc of Itzamna provides immunity to being the target of triggered effects. So that'd only be i), and NOT ii). Or in terms of the examples provided, Disc of Itzamna would provide protection from 1) Many-angled Thing and 2) Temple of R'lyeh, but not 3) The Plague Stone.

I suppose you're right. That's actually a differentiation I didn't think of.

To clarify it for me (just in case):

If the Disc said 'Attached character cannot be targeted by triggered effects.' then it would be a clear-cut case. It would also mean that it wouldn't protect against either Many-angled thing or Temple of R'lyeh, since both cards target the player.

The Plague Stone is a bit different since it doesn't use any kind of targeting in describing its effect.

However, I was thinking, that in the end you still end up with some cards being the target of the effect (all characters) while others aren't (e.g. support cards). Looking over the FAQ, it appears that the explanation of 'target' does not support this interpretation.

However, the FAQ also includes a question about the Museum Curator's Response:

Response: After Museum Curator enters play, search the top 5 cards of your deck for a support card and put it into play. Put the rest of the cards on the bottom of your deck.

This looks like an un-targeted effect to me. But the clarification states:

If there are no legal targets for the Attachment the card cannot be put into play.

So, is the support card 'chosen' by the player a target or not? If the wording used in the answer is indeed correct, then even cards affected by non-targeted effects are considered to be targets of said effects.

Of course it could also be the case that the wording is in this case misleading and the word 'target' was only used in the answer because the question also uses the word 'target' (although it being the incorrect term for the affected card).

Tricky.

To clarify it for me (just in case):

If the Disc said 'Attached character cannot be targeted by triggered effects.' then it would be a clear-cut case. It would also mean that it wouldn't protect against either Many-angled thing or Temple of R'lyeh, since both cards target the player.

The Plague Stone is a bit different since it doesn't use any kind of targeting in describing its effect.

However, I was thinking, that in the end you still end up with some cards being the target of the effect (all characters) while others aren't (e.g. support cards). Looking over the FAQ, it appears that the explanation of 'target' does not support this interpretation.

However, the FAQ also includes a question about the Museum Curator's Response:

Response: After Museum Curator enters play, search the top 5 cards of your deck for a support card and put it into play. Put the rest of the cards on the bottom of your deck.

This looks like an un-targeted effect to me. But the clarification states:

If there are no legal targets for the Attachment the card cannot be put into play.

So, is the support card 'chosen' by the player a target or not? If the wording used in the answer is indeed correct, then even cards affected by non-targeted effects are considered to be targets of said effects.

Of course it could also be the case that the wording is in this case misleading and the word 'target' was only used in the answer because the question also uses the word 'target' (although it being the incorrect term for the affected card).

Tricky.

I know the FAQ only specifies "choose" and "chosen" as the words to indicate targeting, but Damon has clarified this previously for Immurement and Rite of the Silver Gate.

Oh, my, we're definitely entering deep waters here

Regarding 'Disc of Itzamna' I have to admit I can no longer follow your reasoning...

If the word 'a' is indicative of a targeting effect going on, Damon has some serious explaining to do in the next FAQ update. I wonder how many cards include the word 'a'...

I'm still uncomvinced that cards are not chosen/selected/determined to be affected by Plague Stone. I think we are in agreement that it only selects a subset of the cards in play? How then do you determine which of them are 'targets' of the effect?

Don't you have to choose/select/determine which cards are affected. After all, it's only characters that are potential 'targets'.

I could even argue that it only chooses/selects/determines a subset of cards because it only applies to cards in play, which would result in every effect that affects one or more cards in any way having one or more 'targets'.

I sense you're taking the word "target" to mean what is 'affected', but in Call of Cthulhu the word "target" relates to what is 'chosen by the player to be affected'. Think of it as: target = player choice.

(1.9) Choosing Targets
The word “target” is used to indicate that an effect is directing a player to choose 1 or more cards for an effect to resolve on.

Where there is no player choice, the effect is not targeted.

Not every effect that resolves on a card is targeted. An effect that resolves on 1 or more cards without specifically using the word “choose” or “chosen” is not a targeted effect.

Now I know - as quoted above - that the FAQ is explicit about "choose" and (now added in the latest FAQ) "chosen" as the ONLY indicators of a targeted effect; and that "a" doesn't get a mention... I'm interested myself to know why that is, because I now believe - based on that previously linked discussion with Damon about Immurement - that "a" is in fact an indicator of choice!
Just FYI - I recently proposed to Damon that the FAQ should be revised to state: "An effect that resolves on 1 or more cards without specifically using the word “choose” indicating player choice is not a targeted effect." [with an explanation of this change as: Generalisation of targeting, as "choose" is one (and the most prevalent) indicator but not the only one (e.g. Immurement's simple use of "a" in "drain a domain with the most resources")] . Damon considered this, but instead of generalising it he kept it explicit and added the word "chosen", but not the word "a" - and I'm curious to know why / why not, too - so I've now sent him an email asking that very question, and will let you know his response.

I stand corrected! It turns out not all instances where a player gets to choose 1 or more cards for an effect to resolve on is a targeted effect. It is limited only to those effects that use the word "choose" or "chosen" in relation to the thing being affected.

G'day Damon,

A couple of questions for you, if I may, about targeted effects...

1) I'm wondering why the latest FAQ revision wasn't changed in line with my proposal for Generalisation of targeting, as "choose" is one (and the most prevalent) indicator but not the only one (e.g. Immurement's simple use of "a" in "drain a domain with the most resources") , along the lines of: " An effect that resolves on 1 or more cards without specifically indicating player choice is not a targeted effect. "..?

Have I misunderstood our previous conversation about Immurement and Rite of the Silver Gate... Is "a"/"an" not also an indicator of player choice (in most instances) and thus of a targeted effect, even where "choose" or "chosen" is not specified?

FAQ reads:

(1.9) Choosing Targets

The word “target” is used to indicate that an effect is directing a player to choose 1 or more cards for an effect to resolve on. Not every effect that resolves on a card is targeted. An effect that resolves on 1 or more cards without specifically using the word “choose” or “chosen” is not a targeted effect.

2) Would Disc of Itzamna protect a character from Temple of R'lyeh?

That is, is the statement "That opponent must sacrifice a character he controls." a targeted effect, even though it doesn't contain the word "choose" in relation to the opponent's character (although it does state "choose an opponent" in the preceding statement), but it does contain the word "a" (i.e. "sacrifice a character")?

Disc of Itzamna (Ancient Relics F57) reads:

Attach to a character.

Attached character cannot be the target of triggered effects.

After Disc of Itzamna leaves play, shuffle it into its owner's deck.

Temple of R'lyeh (Ancient Relics F73) reads:

Action: Sacrifice a Cthulhu character to choose an opponent. That opponent must sacrifice a character he controls.

Choose and chosen are the only indicators of a chosen effect. So no, the Disc would not protect from an un targeted effect like the Temple.

To be more clear, the Temple is a targeted triggered effect, but it does not target the character, it targets the player. A card like The Claret Knight would ignore the effect, because it is immune to triggered effects.

So that means, in terms of the examples previously provided, Disc of Itzamna would provide protection from 1) Many-angled Thing, but not 2) Temple of R'lyeh or 3) The Plague Stone.

Thanks for getting the clarification from Damon. So, there cannot be any targets if the effect is not targeted. Got it. And the Disc doesn't protect from the Temple because the player is the target, not the character with the Disc attached.

And apparently it still holds true, that some form of 'choose' must be present to indicate a targeted effect. That's at least easy to check for - I hope we won't get (m)any exceptions...

Seems there aren't any exceptions, from Damon's response.