Two of the new hatchlings (the ones that attach to a dragon as duplicates) have strength one. If they come out of shadows and have a valid target to attach to, are they saved from being discarded by Threat from the North? For example, Black Hatchling comes out of shadows while Threat is out. Drogon is in play. Does the card get discarded before it can be attached?
Targ hatchlings and Threat From the North
perpetual noob said:
For example, Black Hatchling comes out of shadows while Threat is out. Drogon is in play. Does the card get discarded before it can be attached?
being on the way out - and it will hit the discard pile at the end of the Shadow window.
ktom said:
Technically, it's ability then kicks in (once it is in play)
Why do you suggest, that Threat is first? It seems, problem here is that both constant effects begin to affect the card at the same time.
Rogue30 said:
ktom said:
Technically, it's ability then kicks in (once it is in play)
Why do you suggest, that Threat is first? It seems, problem here is that both constant effects begin to affect the card at the same time.
ktom said:
Threat is Constant. The Hatchling's duping ability is Passive. Constant comes before passive.
In that case ok, but why we should treat Hatchling's ability as passive? As I read, this affects the game continously. I cannot cancel that, right?
Rogue30 said:
ktom said:
Threat is Constant. The Hatchling's duping ability is Passive. Constant comes before passive.
In that case ok, but why we should treat Hatchling's ability as passive? As I read, this affects the game continously. I cannot cancel that, right?
My interpretation is that the difference between the passive and constant in this case is "if you control" instead of "when you control".
ktom said:
it does have a point of initiation - when the second of the Dragon/Hatchling pair comes into play under your control.
This way you can explain pretty much everything you want e.g. Threat from the north has point of initiation the moment it's revealed.
In case of refugee (If you do not win dominance), we have point of initiation, because of dominance framework point in time, but "controling character" is something continuous (unless cards says exactly controling when - "These abilities are identified by their card text, which indicates when the ability initiates.").
If you do not control a Warship location, kneel Fishwhiskers. So you say I can cancel this, the moment my warship is blanked?
I think you can look at it this way: Constant effect don't check for a condition to see if they apply, passives do. Threat says "This is how it is" and the Hatchling says "If this is true, then do this"
Saturnine said:
Constant effect don't check for a condition to see if they apply
Not true.
Rogue30 said:
Saturnine said:
Constant effect don't check for a condition to see if they apply
Not true.
I'm sure you are right, but I can't think of an example. Got a card in mind?
Saturnine said:
I'm sure you are right, but I can't think of an example. Got a card in mind?
Ser Rodrik Cassel gets +2 STR while defending.
What is the Shadow Action window sequence? Is it considered a Framework Action Window? Or a Player Action Window?
Let's pretend that Eddard Stark(CS) can be killed by a terminal passive effect that is existing.
Eddard Stark claims one power when he comes into play.
That power is the winning power.
Is it the opinion of anyone that Eddard Stark is killed by this terminal effect before he claims this power?
Rogue30 said:
In case of refugee (If you do not win dominance), we have point of initiation, because of dominance framework point in time, but "controling character" is something continuous (unless cards says exactly controling when - "These abilities are identified by their card text, which indicates when the ability initiates.").
Consider Threat from the North again. A constant effect, right? I can't cancel, save, Respond, etc. while it is active just because I feel like it. However, when I play a character and Threat applies to it, a "point of initiation" is created such that I can cancel, save, Respond, etc. Consider Meereenese Brothel. Doesn't the constant effect of Threat from the North create an "after a character's STR is lowered" Response opportunity when you play a card from your hand? The plot is a constant effect, but the new application of it to a new card has the potential to create a point of initiation (which is needed to cancel, save, or Respond to). Similarly, if you are "wise" enough to play Viserys Targaryen while Threat is out, can't you save him from the constant effect's discard?
Rogue30 said:
If you do not control a Warship location, kneel Fishwhiskers. So you say I can cancel this, the moment my warship is blanked?
But I totally get your argument that the Hatchling's effect can be seen as a constant effect rather than a passive effect. After all, everything I just said defending it as a "passively activated terminal effect" can be applied to Threat's effect on the character as it comes into play, making the two look equivalent. (And, of course, we know Threat is constant.) However, I would say that even if we call them both constant effects, they do not conflict, so there is no choice of order for the First Player to make - and the result would be the same. Both the "character get's -1 STR and is discarded at 0" and the "if you control both, make the Hatchling a dupe" require the Hatchling to come into play as a character before being applied. More to the point, the Hatchling will never enter play as a dupe, so Threat needs to be applied. As the character it must be, it is discarded from Threat at the same time it is attached as a dupe by its own ability. Hence, it is moribund when attached and will end up in the discard pile during the Step 6 "clean up." Since you can apply both "constant" effects at the same time without a paradoxical result, you do.
Bomb said:
What is the Shadow Action window sequence? Is it considered a Framework Action Window? Or a Player Action Window?
However, if you do choose to bring a card out of Shadows (already, that element of choice looks like a Player Action Window), that action - plus its Responses - is resolved completely (and moribund cards removed from the table) before the next player can bring a card out of Shadows. And the player to the left (not the First Player) gets the first Response. In that respect, the Shadow opportunity acts like a player action window.
So the Shadow sequence is something of a hybrid window with its own unique timing that doesn't fit exactly into either the "framework" or "player" timing perfectly.
Bomb said:
Let's pretend that Eddard Stark(CS) can be killed by a terminal passive effect that is existing.
Eddard Stark claims one power when he comes into play.
That power is the winning power.
Is it the opinion of anyone that Eddard Stark is killed by this terminal effect before he claims this power?
In the situation you describe, where Eddard's power claim is clearly a passive effect, the continuous stuff will kill him before his passive claims the power. However, he will still claim the power in moribund (ie, "on the way out"), and you'll still win the game, even though he's already dead.
Could one argue that the hatchling is already a dupe before coming into play while still in the shadows?
Why do I bring up that point? Because there are some cards that have triggered abilities that you can enforce while they are in the shadows to bring them out(ex: Ser Mandon Moore). The same applies to cards that are in your hand. If you are simply reading the card text, the hatchling is already a dupe while being in the shadows, thus when it comes into play, it's automatically attaches to the dragon it is supposed to attach to.
Duplicates are unaffected by terminal passive effects when they are put into play as duplicates, and I don't really see the difference here. The dragon character is controlled by you, so isn't it impossible for the hatchling to be a character at any point because of that card text?
If card text can be enforced when in the shadows or when they are in your hand by a triggered effect, then I can't see how this would be much different. The dragon character is controlled by you, therefore it is a duplicate.
Consider this additional argument ignoring the one I made above. There are 2 passive plot effects. One gives +1 strength for a war crest, the other gives -1 strength. The -1 strength will kill a character that reaches strength 0. My point is that if we are going to argue that we consider the passive effects that have no conditions take precedence over any passive effects that do have them, then this game becomes infinitely more confusing and easy to lose track of game flow. Either card text that is a non-triggered effect applies before all other passive effects, or passive effects apply before anything else happens. It'd be nice to make it that simple.
ktom said:
Bomb said:
Let's pretend that Eddard Stark(CS) can be killed by a terminal passive effect that is existing.
Eddard Stark claims one power when he comes into play.
That power is the winning power.
Is it the opinion of anyone that Eddard Stark is killed by this terminal effect before he claims this power?
This actually has nothing to do with Shadows (since CG Eddard is not a Shadow card). Don't confuse the "comes into play with a constant/passive terminal effect existing" discussion here with the fact that the new Hatchlings usually come into play through Shadows. The discussion applies no matter how the character comes into play.
In the situation you describe, where Eddard's power claim is clearly a passive effect, the continuous stuff will kill him before his passive claims the power. However, he will still claim the power in moribund (ie, "on the way out"), and you'll still win the game, even though he's already dead.
The point I'm trying to make is that there is character ability text in both situations and that they should apply at the same time. I was trying to see if in your opinion, Eddard Stark was going to claim a power before he is killed because if that was the case, the Hatchling should become a dupe before being killed.
Bomb said:
Could one argue that the hatchling is already a dupe before coming into play while still in the shadows?
Why do I bring up that point? Because there are some cards that have triggered abilities that you can enforce while they are in the shadows to bring them out(ex: Ser Mandon Moore). The same applies to cards that are in your hand. If you are simply reading the card text, the hatchling is already a dupe while being in the shadows, thus when it comes into play, it's automatically attaches to the dragon it is supposed to attach to.
Duplicates are unaffected by terminal passive effects when they are put into play as duplicates, and I don't really see the difference here. The dragon character is controlled by you, so isn't it impossible for the hatchling to be a character at any point because of that card text?
If card text can be enforced when in the shadows or when they are in your hand by a triggered effect, then I can't see how this would be much different. The dragon character is controlled by you, therefore it is a duplicate.
Consider this additional argument ignoring the one I made above. There are 2 passive plot effects. One gives +1 strength for a war crest, the other gives -1 strength. The -1 strength will kill a character that reaches strength 0. My point is that if we are going to argue that we consider the passive effects that have no conditions take precedence over any passive effects that do have them, then this game becomes infinitely more confusing and easy to lose track of game flow. Either card text that is a non-triggered effect applies before all other pre-existing passive effects, or pre-existing passive effects apply before anything else happens. It'd be nice to make it that simple.
I had to add more clarity to the above post I made since there doesn't appear to be an edit feature.
ktom said:
isn't there a "point of initiation" when the character is played, bringing them under your control for the first time?
ktom said:
The plot is a constant effect, but the new application of it to a new card has the potential to create a point of initiation (which is needed to cancel, save, or Respond to).
ktom said:
I would argue that you have the opportunity to cancel, but I would also argue that it is a "terminal effect" in that canceling it won't stop the overall conditions from being true. As such, it would be reasonable to apply the "cannot save from the terminal effect unless you also remove it from the terminal state" rule to the possibility of cancel (which has the same timing factors as saves).
ktom said:
Since you can apply both "constant" effects at the same time without a paradoxical result, you do.
I don't understand the timing of the Hatchling-effect-as-constant-effect angle. At what point int the timing structure does the Hatchling turn from character into dupe?
Saturnine said:
At what point int the timing structure does the Hatchling turn from character into dupe?
Immediately and continously.
Rogue30 said:
No. You just make up things. There is no such thing as passive terminal effect. Terminal effect by definition is continuous.
Rogue30 said:
You mixing moribund rule exception, which stops or ignore, not cancel, continous effect. That's why FAQ "terminal effects" rule says about save responses, not save and cancel responses - the same timing but different thing. If not for moribund rule exception, then you couldn't save Viserys from Threat.
per se.If I has an event that said "Response: Cancel a character ability. Then attach this card to the character (counts as a Condition attachment with the text 'Treat attached character as if its printed text box were blank.')," why couldn't I use that on Fishwhiskers when I lose my last Warship?
Rogue30 said:
ktom said:
I still maintain that the Hatchlings activate as a passive effect. The alternate explanation of constant effects that do not conflict is just to show that even if I'm wrong about that (and I could be), the end result is the same.
Since you can apply both "constant" effects at the same time without a paradoxical result, you do.
Now ok, but at first you were suggesting that Threat works first. It's important to know why.
Rogue30 said:
Saturnine said:
At what point int the timing structure does the Hatchling turn from character into dupe?
Immediately and continously.
As soon as it (or the corresponding adult dragon) enters play.
But the effect of turning it into a dupe is not "continuously." Once it becomes a dupe, the resolution of the effect is over (another indication that it is not a constant effect). If it happened "immediately and continuously," it would require the text on the Hatchling to maintain the card as a dupe (the way that Frozen Solid requires its own text to maintain its legality as an attachment on a location). But the Hatchling's text is gone as soon as it becomes a dupe (dupes are textless), so obviously, maintaining it as a dupe is not dependent on a continuous effect of the Hatchling.
The point is that the -1/discard at 0 is also applied "as soon as it enters play." And since the two effects that (could) apply at the same time do not conflict, Threat discarding the character and the character becoming the dupe are simultaneous.
Saturnine said:
I don't understand the timing of the Hatchling-effect-as-constant-effect angle. At what point int the timing structure does the Hatchling turn from character into dupe?
Saturnine said:
I don't understand the timing of the Hatchling-effect-as-constant-effect angle. At what point int the timing structure does the Hatchling turn from character into dupe?
Honestly I think the Hatchling becomes a duplicate even before they are put into play, which to me means they also could be pulled out of the shadows or played from your hand to be attached as that duplicate.
Is the Loyal Guard any different? The condition for the Loyal Guard is that you may play him from your hand as a duplicate on any N character. It does not limit the phase, but only the state of him being in your hand and the non-house affiliation of who he can be a dupe of.
The only condition for the Hatchling is that you control the dragon character it can attach to. At which point you must attach the Hatchling to that dragon.
Bomb said:
Honestly I think the Hatchling becomes a duplicate even before they are put into play, which to me means they also could be pulled out of the shadows or played from your hand to be attached as that duplicate.
say they can be used as duplicates when they are not "in play," they cannot. Their text only becomes active when they are in play.Bomb said:
Is the Loyal Guard any different? The condition for the Loyal Guard is that you may play him from your hand as a duplicate on any N character. It does not limit the phase, but only the state of him being in your hand and the non-house affiliation of who he can be a dupe of.
sayssay Bomb said:
The only condition for the Hatchling is that you control the dragon character it can attach to. At which point you must attach the Hatchling to that dragon.
Since you "must" attach them to the Dragons as dupes, why don't the Hatchlings jump out of your deck, discard, or dead pile automatically when you put the adult dragon into play? They don't come out of your hand or Shadows as dupes for the same reason.
Fair enough.
I was just trying to challenge the strength of those passive effects because I had felt like there was inconsistency in when passive effects like that are enforced against cards/characters that have effects that are not triggered effects since there is a specific window for triggered effects not a very clear one for others.
I don't actually know if what you say about the Hatchling is an official ruling or not, but I read the card as if it can't possibly come out as a character in play before it is a duplicate because the condition to being a duplicate is met synchronously with coming out of the shadows. It's perfectly fine if that is part of the actual game mechanics, but I was under the assumption that non-triggered effects were instantaneous as soon as the condition is met.