Caelenvasius. You are a typical intellectual bully. There are people on these forums, like GrandSpleen, who have been doing these discussions in depth for months, if not years. They have demonstrated far more knowledge, consistently, than anything I have seen from you. I saw you first comment here like a day ago. All of a sudden you are flooding the forums with long posts that come across as arrogant, condescending, and self important, but not smart. People like you win debates by focusing on minute and largely irrelevant details and by drawing distinctions without and significant difference, then mock and belittle others for not noticing the same small aspect. Yet, often, these small details are merely arbitrary descriptive strategies that mean very little. I shall answer your questions in the most complete and destructive way I can because I want you to either develop some humility or stop posting on these forums.

Here we go. According to the philosopher William James the meaning of a word or phrase is significant only in its practical use. If two words end up with the same practical use then the two words really mean the same thing. It is interesting to note, for instance, that when the words "and" and "but" are transcribed using symbols from symbolic logic the words are represented by the same symbol because in logical mechanisms the two words offer no difference in their practical use.

Let's apply that to our discussion here. I stated that the phrase "immune to player card effects" can be described as a triggered ability, using the same logic you employed to call toughness a triggered ability. I never said that it IS described that way, but merely that it CAN BE (it is like you didn't bother to read what I said). You did not refute this point, nor, honestly, appear to understand it. My point was that the designation of toughness as a passive ability or not a passive ability was entire arbitrary. It was not a logically necessary conclusion based on whether or not the ability included a trigger.

You said, "I'm not sure how you can reconcile these two quotes," referring to a claim you made and a claim I made. I am not sure why reconciling those two quotes is my job. It seemed abundantly clear according to standard communication techniques that the expressed purpose of my claim was to contradict your claim. By the very nature of my attempt to contradict you it would seem that I would want to put forth a statement that could not be reconciled with your statement as it would, you know, contradict it. But nevertheless let me attempt to do something similar to what I think you meant to say.

I think you meant to say that my thesis was already refuted by your comment, and since I had failed to address what you had said the burden of proof was still on me. Okay, so what is your point? It seems that you are saying that "immune to player card effects" is passive because it is always there. It doesn't just pop up when triggered. For the life of me, I have no clue how you think that this is any kind of valid argument. In what sense does toughness "go away" when it is not being triggered? How exactly is immunity more present than toughness? Honestly, it is just bizarre.

You attempt to refute my point by saying that immunity does not "cancel" player card effects; it "ignores" them. Wow, zing. Because there is a noticeable difference between cancel and ignore?? Even if it does ignore the effects, isn't the act of ignoring triggered?

You said, "it certainly does not 'trigger' when a player card is played." This is an error on several levels. First, of course immunity triggers when a player card is played. How is it not? If it wasn't triggered then the player card would work. Second, I never said it triggered of a player card anyway; I specifically said it triggered off player card effects, canceling them. All you did was assert that I was wrong, but asserting something doesn't make it true, even when done condescendingly. This point is made very clear by your own reasoning in the following section.

You go on to explain how toughness works in contrast to defense (as though I don't already know). You make it very clear that all damage is reduced by toughness. Oh, so you mean it is on all the time? So, you mean it certainly doesn't "trigger" when a player card is played? Yeah, I know. That was my point.

If you wish to debate further I would love to teach you more about basic rules of logic and argumentation, even if it is with a person who claims to know better.

For reference, I'm quoting Toughness (from The Road Darkens rule sheet).

Toughness is a new keyword in The Road Darkens Saga Expansion. An enemy with the toughness keyword reduces the amount of damage it takes by X each time it is assigned any amount of damage.

Nazgul of Minas Morgul - This is the closest card I can find to Toughness that is also a passive ability that "triggers" if you will.

Reduce any amount of damage dealt to Nazgul of Minas Morgul to 1.

Nazgul of Minas Morgul has a passive effect and while it is similar to Toughness it does have a slightly different wording.

Rescue Iarion - This card's When Revealed effect creates a passive effect that has a trigger.

When Revealed: The first player loses control of Iârion and places him facedown underneath this stage. When this stage is defeated, the first player takes control of Iârion and exhausts him.

I think the confusion here is that Passive, Forced, Response, and Action all have in-game definitions. Any definition of these words that the English language permits are irrelevant for the purposes of this game. Simply put, a passive effect is one in which the text has no preceding defining text, a Forced effect is one in which the card has the "Forced:" text preceding its effect, a Response is an effect in which the card has the "Response:" text preceding its effect, and an Action is an effect in which the card has the "Action:" text preceding its effect.

Unfortunately, the rules on Toughness do not explicitly tell us what kind of effect it is. In my opinion, it must be passive effect since the definition excludes any use of the text "Forced:, Response:, or Action:".

Edit: Where it gets confusing, is that we know from prior rulings is that Actions:, Responses, and other various card effects can initiate passive effects (such as Expecting Mischief).

Caelenvasius. You are a typical intellectual bully. [...] [you] mock and belittle others [...] I want you to either develop some humility or stop posting on these forums.

[...]

I would love to teach you more about basic rules of logic and argumentation, even if it is with a person who claims to know better.

Not once in my refutation did I personally attack you, only your statements (which need I remind you is valid in the debate field). I would however ask that you kindly refrain from character assassinations in the future. Such comments are unkind and unnecessary, especially considering that they do not further the purpose and goals of this thread. I have not once in this thread, or indeed this board, mocked or belittled anyone. Everyone is treated with respect and neutrality until such time as they prove that they don't deserve it (at which point, instead of indulging myself, I ignore them, removing the problem before it becomes as such). Arguing with folk in a place of debate is not intrinsically disrespectful and it is most certainly not akin to bullying. It is instead for the sake of furthering concepts and the goals of this thread to establish a cleaner and more reliable framework.

I will agree that humility is not one of my strong points, in personal interactions or in online ones. I feel strongly about what I know, and I wish to share it with those around me, especially when their goals align with mine. I'm not so stubborn as to believe myself infallible (for example, my play group had been playing the Guarded keyword a bit incorrectly for sometime), but I'm not changing my opinions and statements based on incomplete or ill-stated comments, or assumptions based on false understandings. And indeed it is irksome when I spend a great amount of my free time to add to the topic, even to the point of taking a concept down to its very base level and someone like yourself refuses to see it as valid (remembering that validity and correctness are not synonymous) and instead of trying to advance the debate, descend to personal attacks and mockery.

I never said that it IS described that way, but merely that it CAN BE (it is like you didn't bother to read what I said).

You ascribed that capability to my logic in the prior posts. That is was I was refuting; I have never described immunity as a triggered ability, and have always kept the delineation between triggered and passive abilities clear and distinct. Saying that somehow I confused my own reasoning, when I clearly have not, is asinine and untrue.

My point was that the designation of toughness as a passive ability or not a passive ability was entire arbitrary. It was not a logically necessary conclusion based on whether or not the ability included a trigger.

Except that it's very much not arbitrary in the slightest. By definition, a triggered ability cannot be passive. It needs must be active all the time (if inactive then the trigger and its resolution effectively cease to exist) but that in and of itself does not make it passive. By the same token, a passive ability by its definition must not have a trigger. It must be constant from the time the text is active until such time as the text is inactive.

To this end, by its very text, "immune to player card effects" must be passive. The text does not say "when a player card effect targets or would otherwise effect this card, ignore it." This would make it a triggered ability. Instead, it simply constantly ignores player card effects, despite the existence or non-existence of relevant player card abilities.

And yes, I again used "ignore" instead of "cancel." Why? It's more than just how the developers have written it in the FAQ; "cancel the effect" and "ignore the effect" are completely separate things. In the former, the effect is treated as if it never happened (thus canceling it for all possible targets in the case of a board-wide effect). In the latter, the effect simply doesn't exist for that one card (thus not preventing it from affecting other potential targets in the case of a board-wide effect).

Let's take for example the passive ability of the Lore hero Pippin, which states: "Each enemy in play gets +1 engagement cost for each Hobbit hero you control." Let's say Pippin's controller also controls the heroes Merry and Sam. There are three enemies in play, one of which is immune to player card effects. If immunity was a "cancel" effect, for as long as that enemy remained in play, the other two enemies would not increase their engagement cost, since canceling Pippin's ability means it [temporarily] ceases to exist. As immunity is "ignore" instead, the other two enemies increase their engagement cost by three as per Pippin's ability, but the immune enemy does not.

I hope this clears up my point about cancel vs ignore.

You said, "I'm not sure how you can reconcile these two quotes," referring to a claim you made and a claim I made. I am not sure why reconciling those two quotes is my job. [...] that I would want to put forth a statement that could not be reconciled with your statement as it would, you know, contradict it.

By making a claim to one thing, when evidence had long clearly shown another, they are not reconcilable. [Need I remind you that "reconcilable" does not mean "in agreement," as you seem to think, but rather "capable of being compatible," as in "the refutation is relevant to the refuted statement?"] The burden of proof of why your statement is meaningful thus falls on you. If I very clearly state in post 122 that ""immune to player card effects" is not dependent on a card targeting it to activate," and you try to state that I wrote something else entirely ("By your logic you can describe "immune to player card effects" as a cancelation [sic.] effect that triggers whenever you try to use player card effects."), you're either grossly misreading/misunderstanding, or you're making an improper conflation.

Either way, the burden of proof falls on you. How does "immunity text does not require player card effects to be active" mean the same thing as "immunity text triggers when a player uses a player card effect?"

In what sense does toughness "go away" when it is not being triggered?

It does not, nor does any other ability "go away" — at least until the card is out of play, at which point the card's text box is for all intents and purposes blank (or in the rare case that a card effect instructs you to treat the text box as if it were blank). It merely waits active but unresolved until triggered, like all other triggered abilities. In the case of Toughness, the trigger being "the card with Toughness receiving damage."

How exactly is immunity more present than toughness?

Passive abilities are by their nature more emanant than triggered abilities, since the former does not require the fulfillment of a prerequisite to resolve and continues to be active for the duration of the effect. Only when the prerequisite effect has occurred does a triggered ability become present, at least as far as its game effects are concerned, and once it is finished resolving it returns to inactivity. Once more, the distinction lies clearly within the nature of "triggered ability" itself.

One may think of it like this: any ability has two separate but related binary switches as components. The first one, labeled "card text is active," must be on for the second switch, labeled "card text is resolving" to also be on. Should the first switch turn off, the second one defaults to off as well. For passive abilities, images that the switches have a bar that connects them, such that they turn on or off simultaneously: as long as the card is active, the ability is resolving. Should the card become inactive, so does the ability. Triggered abilities lack that bar, and have additional levels of complexity: the second switch does not turn on automatically, but instead must be manually flipped (by fulfilling the prerequisite trigger). Then, once the switch has finished cycling, it defaults back to off.

Now, imagine that these switches control the flow of power to a light source, one that is labeled "presence" (to borrow your word). Both switches must be on for the light to receive power. For the passive set of switches, it's easy for it to be "on" since all that it requires is the first switch to be flipped. The triggered light is on far less often than the passive one though, for not only must both switches be flipped separately, but the second one must be continuously re-flipped for the light to be on. Thus, the passive light is more emanant (or present) than the triggered one.

You make it very clear that all damage is reduced by toughness. Oh, so you mean it is on all the time? So, you mean it certainly doesn't "trigger" when a player card is played?

First of all, Toughness does not trigger upon the playing of a player card. I'll forgive you for that one, since you spent the few paragraphs prior discussing immunities. Moving on...

To reference my "switch" example above, Toughness as a keyword is active while it is in play (i.e. the first switch), but is not triggered until damage is applied (i.e. the second switch). This is taken straight from the full rules text for the keyword, presented here, though swapped around for your edification and convenience: "each time [an enemy with Toughness] is assigned any amount of damage[, reduce] the amount of damage it takes by X." Thus, taking damage constitutes as a trigger, and reducing the damage by X constitutes a response. If the card with Toughness is not taking damage, Toughness is not resolving, despite the text itself being active. This, in keeping with all of the definitions and examples above, makes Toughness a triggered ability.

As a further example, let us examine the Surge keyword. The full rules text for Surge state that it resolves "when revealed." Thus, if a card is added to the staging area, or to a player's engagement area, without being "revealed" first, Surge cannot resolve. To parrot the phrasing I used a few sentences ago, if the card with Surge is not being revealed, Surge is not resolving, despite the text itself being active.

------------------------------

I do hope that this veritable mountain of text clarifies my position, and their relation (or lack thereof) to your comments, beyond a shadow of a doubt. There was, in all honesty, some amount of confusion that added to the troubles, at least some of which I'm for to blame; hence, my long-winded, carefully crafted post. Rest assured, I am not angry at you for disagreeing with me —indeed, I like pleasant debates more often than not —but I do dislike character assassinations and mocking tone, especially when I'm being deadly serious.

I look forward to your response (absolutely zero sarcasm intended), but I hope that when it comes it is civil and on topic.

[Edited for minor spelling and grammar.]

Local Trouble [Heirs of Numenor] is a good example of a passive ability with a "trigger".

Unfortunately, it is not.

Here is the full text:

When Revealed: Attach this card to the hero with the highest threat cost without a copy of Local Trouble attached. (Counts as a Condition attachment with the text: 'When attached hero exhausts, readies, or triggers an ability, raise its controller's threat by 1.')

What we have here is in fact two separate triggered abilities, each unique to which form the card takes.

First, is the "when revealed" effect, during which the card is a Treachery card. The trigger is being revealed, and its resolution is its attachment to the hero specified by the remaining text in that sentence.

The phrase "counts as" denotes the card's transition from a Treachery to a pseudo card type, "Condition." While the card is in this later form, it gains a separate triggered ability. The trigger is the attached hero exhausting/readying/triggering an ability, the resolution of which is raising said hero's controller's threat by 1.

------------------------------

Nazgul of Minas Morgul - This is the closest card I can find to Toughness that is also a passive ability that "triggers" if you will.

Reduce any amount of damage dealt to Nazgul of Minas Morgul to 1.

Nazgul of Minas Morgul has a passive effect and while it is similar to Toughness it does have a slightly different wording.

I would still hesitate to call this a passive ability, though the written form of it is closer to an actual passive ability than any of us have heretofore presented. The reason why is that the text has a sort of built-in trigger, though its not quite printed as such; that being "being dealt damage." I will say though that this answer is a bit trickier to be specific on, so take the answer with a grain of salt. However, it is one of the exceedingly few cards I've seen that approach a "gray area" between the two types of abilities. Granted, I have yet to go through the entire card pool (and have little desire at the moment to do so).

I think the confusion here is that Passive, Forced, Response, and Action all have in-game definitions. Any definition of these words that the English language permits are irrelevant for the purposes of this game. Simply put, a passive effect is one in which the text has no preceding defining text, a Forced effect is one in which the card has the "Forced:" text preceding its effect, a Response is an effect in which the card has the "Response:" text preceding its effect, and an Action is an effect in which the card has the "Action:" text preceding its effect.

Unfortunately, the rules on Toughness do not explicitly tell us what kind of effect it is. In my opinion, it must be passive effect since the definition excludes any use of the text "Forced:, Response:, or Action:".

Edit: Where it gets confusing, is that we know from prior rulings is that Actions:, Responses, and other various card effects can initiate passive effects (such as Expecting Mischief).

Unfortunately, the timing of these abilities wasn't the main point of irritation here. Indeed, I had covered the peculiarity of timing Toughness a number of posts ago :

Toughness does not trigger when the card is revealed, which makes it unlike Surge, Doomed, and Peril. Instead, it triggers when that card receives damage, as stated in the expanded text. It doesn't time travel, and it technically isn't a passive ability either since it has a trigger ( though because it isn't Forced/Reaction/etc. it necessarily slots into the "passive" section of the timing window ).

Emphasis mine.

Nevertheless, I appreciate the input.

I do not think I was arguing for the timing window, but I'm not a debate professional.

See FAQ section 1.36. Triggered abilities are abilities that have a bold trigger

(1.36) Triggered abilities vs. Passive abilities

Triggered abilities are abilities on cards that have a bold trigger word such as Action or Response. These abilities are only applied when they are triggered. Passive abilities are abilities on cards that have an ongoing effect without a bold trigger word. Because passive abilities don’t have a trigger they are always active and cannot be “triggered”.

We also know that Forced effects are triggered effects due to the following:

Core Rule Book p.23 - They are denoted by a bold “Forced:” trigger on a card. These effects initiate and resolve immediately, whenever their specified prerequisite occurs.The enemy card Marsh Adder provides an example of a forced effect that must be triggered whenever its specified trigger (“each time Marsh Adder attacks”) is met.

Marsh Adder's game text:

Forced: Each time Marsh Adder attacks you, raise your threat by 1.

Now, the reason there is confusion is because Toughness says "each time this enemy is assigned damage" (which, yes, is the same sentence structure as Marsh Adder) sounds like a trigger. However, that is irrelevant, because my argument states that it is not a trigger simply because it does not have the bold trigger preceding its text as outlined and defined in 1.36 of the FAQ.

For example, if Marsh Adder's game text had "Forced:" removed from it, it would now be a passive effect since it no longer is defined as a triggered effect since it has no "bold trigger".

Edit: I may be wrong here regarding your argument, but I think the reason that there is any confusion at all is because you are defining the word "trigger" as you understand it to be defined in the English language. Likely, your definition is accurate, for English, but the developers have defined triggered abilities, in the context of this game, and using any other definition is a fallacy (of some sort that I cannot remember since it has been many many years since I took a debate class).

Man, this was so much more fun when Seastan was attaching Spiders-web and Wingfoot to the same hero and creating closed-loop time warps.

Then again, I'm the guy who wanted to Test of Will a Ranger of the North, so I guess I'm biased.

Unfortunately, the rules on Toughness do not explicitly tell us what kind of effect it is. In my opinion, it must be passive effect since the definition excludes any use of the text "Forced:, Response:, or Action:".

Toughness is a keyword, one of the 6 card effects possible on an encounter card (Rulebook, p.23). Keywords seem to have the right to behave more-or-less how they want, on a case-by-case basis.

Unfortunately, it is not.

The portion of Local Trouble that is in effect when it is a condition attachment is a passive effect (more correctly, a "Constant effect"---rulebook, p.23. I don't know why we started calling them passives). We can determine this by noting that there are six types of card effects that appear on encounter cards (rulebook p.23). The effect in question is not a forced effect, not a response, not a keyword, not a travel effect, and not a shadow effect, so by exhaustion it must be a constant effect.

I'm not exactly sure why they didn't make it a Forced effect, but perhaps they wanted to make sure that it applied before any other effect. Hopefully they will never print a player card with a passive effect that would lower threat by 1 when a hero does something, because then we have an annoying question on our hands.

Bleh, stupid NathanH

Unfortunately, the rules on Toughness do not explicitly tell us what kind of effect it is. In my opinion, it must be passive effect since the definition excludes any use of the text "Forced:, Response:, or Action:".

Toughness is a keyword, one of the 6 card effects possible on an encounter card (Rulebook, p.23). Keywords seem to have the right to behave more-or-less how they want, on a case-by-case basis.

Yes, keywords have the right to behave any way they want. However, they are still subject to the rules defined as we know it (unless the developers state otherwise). I am probably wrong (since I haven't verified it), but I think all keywords thus far have passive effects because none of them have any bold triggers. Just because they happen (intentionally avoiding using the word "trigger") at different times based on each keyword's definition does not inherently make them passive or triggered, though. Again, this is simply because the developers have defined passive for us. They have also defined "triggered abilities" for us. Due to this, we have to operate under the assumption that anything without a bold trigger is therefore not "triggered" even if some prerequisite must be met for it to occur such as "entering play" for Ambush. Ambush's ability is passive even though it happens "when it enters play".

Defining something as passive currently serves two functions:

1. It tells us when to resolve it if there are multiple effects with the same prerequisite and;

2. It tells us it is not triggered (as defined in 1.36 of the FAQ)

Let's take Beregond as an example, since this was admitted as a passive ability. My entire point is that it's designation as a passive ability is entirely arbitrary. It can either be written as a "response" (triggered ability) or "passive" ability simply by how the text appears on the card.

As a triggered response it would appear as: Response: When playing an armor or weapon card on Beregond, reduce the cost of that card by 2.

If written that way absolutely nothing in the game would change. Clearly, Beregond's ability has a trigger. Yet Caelenvasius said that his ability is not dependant on a card being played on him. Clearly, Caelenvasius is wrong. He tried to counter this by talking about global buffs, like Pippen's because global buffs are the one passive effect that does not have a trigger (that U can thint of right now). He seems to want passive abilities to be something very similar to global buffs. They are not. They are simply abilities that do not include a "forced" or "response" text.

I will grant that in the case of global buffs ignore is a better word than cancel, and for that reason it makes more sense to write immunity as a passive effect rather than a "response", but he will have to change his designation of Beregond's ability from passive to triggered to remain consistent. In the same way, toughness just works better as a keyword rather than a "forced" effect, which it also could have been written as.

To me cmabr002 completely ended the debate when he used the rules to clarify exactly how the terms are defined. Caelenvasius may WANT the definition of passive abilities to include some concept of not having a trigger, but according to the clear declaration of the designers this is simply not the case. End of story.

Everything else that was said was basically irrelevant.

Hello,

I'm a bit intimidated about posting my ruling idea as the first post ever in this forum, but here we go:

What about giving emphasis to the word " just revealed" in Quick Ears? I know that probably the phrasing was only to clarify that you cannot cancel an enemy present in the staging area.

But what if that "just" also pose a timing limitation? You can play the card only as the very first thing after an enemy is revealed from the enocunter deck, before any shenanigans with other responses. I know that the rules say that you can manage the order of the responses as you wish, but with this interpretation, the loophole that Seastan brought up would be break, as you have to play quick ears before anything else. If you "do stuff" in the meantime the card is not "just revealed" anymore, after all.

Not sure if anyone has answered to this yet, so:

Hi there, welcome to the forums!

I'm no expert in these timing shenigans (and I don't take them too seriously), but I guess mechanic wise you can do stuff before this card and still handle it as if it the encounter card was "just" revealed, as the other effects technically happened at the same time (and thus not between).

Now I hope I am not totally wrong..

Hello,

I'm a bit intimidated about posting my ruling idea as the first post ever in this forum, but here we go:

What about giving emphasis to the word " just revealed" in Quick Ears? I know that probably the phrasing was only to clarify that you cannot cancel an enemy present in the staging area.

But what if that "just" also pose a timing limitation? You can play the card only as the very first thing after an enemy is revealed from the enocunter deck, before any shenanigans with other responses. I know that the rules say that you can manage the order of the responses as you wish, but with this interpretation, the loophole that Seastan brought up would be break, as you have to play quick ears before anything else. If you "do stuff" in the meantime the card is not "just revealed" anymore, after all.

Not sure if anyone has answered to this yet, so:

Hi there, welcome to the forums!

I'm no expert in these timing shenigans (and I don't take them too seriously), but I guess mechanic wise you can do stuff before this card and still handle it as if it the encounter card was "just" revealed, as the other effects technically happened at the same time (and thus not between).

Now I hope I am not totally wrong..

Rule-wise you are 100% right, I was just offering a sort of "backdoor" to the loop by exploiting the particular phrasing on Quick Ears (which is not present in all the encounter cancellation effects, by the way).

Hello,

I'm a bit intimidated about posting my ruling idea as the first post ever in this forum, but here we go:

What about giving emphasis to the word " just revealed" in Quick Ears? I know that probably the phrasing was only to clarify that you cannot cancel an enemy present in the staging area.

But what if that "just" also pose a timing limitation? You can play the card only as the very first thing after an enemy is revealed from the enocunter deck, before any shenanigans with other responses. I know that the rules say that you can manage the order of the responses as you wish, but with this interpretation, the loophole that Seastan brought up would be break, as you have to play quick ears before anything else. If you "do stuff" in the meantime the card is not "just revealed" anymore, after all.

Not sure if anyone has answered to this yet, so:

Hi there, welcome to the forums!

I'm no expert in these timing shenigans (and I don't take them too seriously), but I guess mechanic wise you can do stuff before this card and still handle it as if it the encounter card was "just" revealed, as the other effects technically happened at the same time (and thus not between).

Now I hope I am not totally wrong..

Rule-wise you are 100% right, I was just offering a sort of "backdoor" to the loop by exploiting the particular phrasing on Quick Ears (which is not present in all the encounter cancellation effects, by the way).

Welcome to the forums

The problem is that the phrasing is inconsistent with official rulings, so we can't just look at the phrasing and know what to do. A Test of Will uses the "just revealed" phrase, yet we have a ruling that says that the Prowl keyword triggers before it and can leave you with no resources to play A Test of Will. Meanwhile the Quick Ears ruling, which also uses "just revealed", has to resolve before anything in order for it to make sense.