You are looking at the wrong part. It isn't the "if" phrase that defines it. It is the verb that follows it. Easy examples first:

• "If you win a challenge in which Daenerys Targaryen attacked alone, move all gold token from the losing opponent's gold pool to your gold pool." (CS-Dany)

Obviously passive, right? Why? Not because of the "if you win" part, but because the verb telling you what to do ("move") is an active, one-time verb. You win the challenge and "move" happens. If someone cancels the "move" part (and there have been generic, non-triggered ability cancels before), it doesn't reassert itself, even though you still "won the challenge" and other "if you win a challenge..." effects might still be happening. Or how about:

• "If you do not win dominance, pay 1 gold or discard (Whatever) Refugee from play." (all 7 Refugees)

Again, obviously a passive, right? And again, because of the verb telling you what to do ("pay" or "discard") when the "if" condition is met, not because of the "if" itself. On the other side of the coin:

• "If you are not running an Agenda, The Red Viper gains: (text)" (KL-Viper)

Obviously constant, right? But this time, because the verb telling you what to do ("gains") is itself a constant, ongoing action or state (in this game's context). Similarly:

• "If you have no power on your House card, Beric Dondarrion cannot be killed or discarded from play." (Berric Dondarrion)

Again, obviously constant because the verb is one that describes an ongoing action or state.

So you see, you identify whether something is a passive or a constant effect based on the active vs. ongoing nature of the verb after the "if" statement. That, after all, is what the effect is actually doing.

Now, I can already hear you saying that there is a distinct difference between the above examples and the "if you control X" restriction/condition that we have on the Hatchlings. And you are right. There is. The difference is that the type of verb in the "if" statement matches the type of verb in the effect part. "If you win X" matches the active, one-time idea of verbs like "move," "pay," and "discard." On the other hand, "If you are not running" and "If you have X" match the constant, ongoing action or state of the verbs they are paired with ("gains" and "be"). However, the "if you control" condition is paired with both active, one-time verbs and constant, ongoing action or state verbs. For example:

• "If you control at least 1 Wildling character, treat attached location as if its printed text box were blank." (Climbing Spikes)

That verb there ("treat") is one which describes an ongoing state, so this would seem to be constant. The example here is pretty much the same as the KL-Viper or Berric. But what about:

• "If you control Ser Barristan Selmy, discard Arstan Whitebeard from play (cannot be saved)." (Arstan Whitebeard)

Here, the verb, "discard," is one of those active, one-time verbs. So do we interpret this as a passive effect, the way we did when the verb "discard" showed up on the Refugees? The fact that it is specified to be "cannot be saved" pretty much tells us that we should interpret this as a passive. If this was truly constant, you wouldn't need to say "cannot be saved" because the timing would prevent it, right? (That's the argument on the Hatchlings through this thread, isn't it?) Or, if you don't like the "save" example because the rules don't say anything about not being able to save vs. constant effects, only that you cannot cancel, then how about:

• If you are the only player to control The Iron Throne, you automatically win dominance (cannot be canceled). (DotN Iron Throne)

Aren't we looking at the same thing here? The verb "win" is one of those active, one-time verbs, implying that this should be interpreted as a passive effect that resolves and is over with, not a constant effect that just keeps on going. If this were a constant effect, and constant effects cannot be canceled, why put "cannot be canceled" in there?

The confusing part here is that "if you control..." is that type of "constant play restriction" that is usually, but not always, paired with constant effect verbs. It does end up having an impact on how the effect is resolved. Earlier, I likened it to a terminal effect. For illustration, the thing to do would be look at the full resolution of the general flowchart on p. 18 of the FAQ. To whit:

When a passive activated (Step 4.I), you have the opportunity to save/cancel (Step 4.II), which would then impact the resolution of the passive (Step 4.III). Most of the time, you are done with this. The one-time, active "if X" play restriction has already been factored into once. However, when the "if" phrase is using a constant, ongoing state verb like "control," the play restriction reasserts itself in Step 4.IV, effectively triggering the passive again. And again. And again until the one-time, active verb of the card ability resolves and there is no way to resolve it again successfully. You can only win dominance once. You can only discard Arstan once. You can only attach the Hatchlings as duplicates once. (And only 1 of those 3 examples even remotely involves the moribund rules exception.)

Note that all of that is exactly what happens in a "kill at 0" terminal effect situation. The "if the character's STR is 0" is a constant play restriction that would normally be paired with a constant, ongoing verb for a constant effect. But here, paired with an effect verb of "kill," it reasserts itself, even after a save/cancel (as the definition of a terminal effect tells us it does). So the situation with something like Arstan, the Iron Throne, and the Hatchlings is exactly parallel: an "if" phrase with an ongoing verb and an effect verb that resolves just once when that "if" condition is met.

So that's how I tell. I look at the verb of the effect part to see whether it is an active, one-time verb that can be resolved only once. If so, that's a passive effect. On the other hand, if it is an ongoing action or state (like "gains" or "cannot be,"), it is a constant effect. Then I look at the "if" phrase that places the condition/play restriction on the activation of that effect verb. When the "if" condition verb matches the effect verb, no problem. When they don't match, it is usually an ongoing condition verb matched with a one-time effect verb. Those are passives, but terminal in that they reassert themselves in Step 4.IV of the resolution of that passive. Looking at the Hatchlings with their "if you control" ongoing condition verb and "attach" one-time effect verb, they are the latter type of effect; passive, but terminal in that it reasserts itself.

And no, I don't expect people to get all of that quickly and easily from a single reading of the rules. That's where the experience comes in. And quite honestly, in the end it doesn't matter much whether it is a passive that reasserts itself or a straight constant effect because the final result is the same - there is nothing in the game that can stop it from happening.

And btw: the reassertion of the passive effect is a brand new activation of it. That's why it wouldn't matter, even if you were to cancel the Hatchlings with some mythically applicable cancel. Canceling activation #1 doesn't have any impact on the reactivation (#2) when the effect reasserts itself. It's a "whole new" activation of the effect that has not been canceled.

Thank you ktom for your well thought out explanation of this. I do follow what you are saying.

I still don't think it should require as much analysis. These types of effects and their key differences should be properly labeled and duly notes in the FAQ and on the card. If it's Constant it should be labeled as such on all cards and then have an amendment in the FAQ that says what can or cannot be done to it. If it's Passive, it should be labeled as such on all cards with the same amendment in the FAQ. It shouldn't require an SAT verbal score acclamation to or analysis of card text sentence construction to identify whether or not it's a constant or passive effect.

I mean you probably agree with this, because otherwise you wouldn't have had to write up such a long post. I mean, experience with the game is one thing, but deconstructing card text for the context of the language used is another.

I do agree it could be simpler, but I think there is also a point of diminishing returns.

There is a technical difference between constant effects and passive effects that reassert themselves (ie, terminal effects), but that difference is functionally unimportant without an appropriate save or cancel. It is certainly an unimportant difference in the case of the Hatchlings.

ktom, I really appreciate what you wrote.

Let me show you my method:

What we know from rules document:
Passive Abilities: These abilities are identified by their card text, which indicates when the ability initiates.
Constant Abilities: Because there is no point of initiation, they cannot be canceled.

"If you win a challenge in which Daenerys Targaryen attacked alone, move all gold token from the losing opponent's gold pool to your gold pool." (CS-Dany)

When? After you win (It should be written "After you win" btw) - one point in time (framework event).
Cancel makes sense? Yes, because it triggers only once (there is point of initiation).
Verdict: Passive.

"If you do not win dominance, pay 1 gold or discard (Whatever) Refugee from play." (all 7 Refugees)

When? After you do not win - one point in time (framework event).
Cancel makes sense? Yes, because it triggers only once (there is point of initiation).
Verdict: Passive.

"If you are not running an Agenda, The Red Viper gains: (text)" (KL-Viper)

When? No information.
Cancel makes sense? No, because it works all the time (there is no point of initiation).
Verdict: Constant.

"If you have no power on your House card, Beric Dondarrion cannot be killed or discarded from play." (Berric Dondarrion)

When? No information.
Cancel makes sense? No, because it works all the time (there is no point of initiation).
Verdict: Constant.

"If you control at least 1 Wildling character, treat attached location as if its printed text box were blank." (Climbing Spikes)

When? No information.
Cancel makes sense? No, because it works all the time (there is no point of initiation).
Verdict: Constant.

"If you control Ser Barristan Selmy, discard Arstan Whitebeard from play (cannot be saved)." (Arstan Whitebeard)

When? No information.
Cancel makes sense? No, because it will trigger again and again, it works all the time (there is no point of initiation or said another way: there are infinite numbers of points of initiation).
Verdict: Constant.
Note: "cannot be saved" makes sense, because I can save him and take to hand etc. - see moribund rules exception. Irrelevant to constant/passive rules.

"If you are the only player to control The Iron Throne, you automatically win dominance (cannot be canceled)." (DotN Iron Throne)

When? One point in time (framework event).
Cancel makes sense? Yes, because it triggers only once (there is point of initiation). Thus "cannot be canceled".
Verdict: Passive.

"If you control Drogon, attach Black Hatchling and all of its duplicates to Drogon as duplicates."

When? No information.
Cancel makes sense? No, because it will trigger again and again, it works all the time (there is no point of initiation or said another way: there are infinite numbers of points of initiation).
Verdict: Constant.

Now what method is more simpler and consistent with rules document? (I don't see anything about verbs there.)
If you believe that you are right, then ask Nate to include your method in FAQ. I will be really happy.

ktom said:

ktom said:

Rogue30 said:

Rogue30 said:

Rogue30 said:

Rogue30 said:

Rogue30 said:

This method of "when" doesn't work for me because all of the "if" statements involve an aspect of timing. The rest of the effect is only valid when the "if" statement is true. The difference here is whether the rest of the effect initiates or is simply true as well.

Rogue30 said:

Rogue30 said:

Rogue30 said:

People ask about the outcome, not the mechanics. That's not about "stupid" or "lazy;" it's about the level of detail that matters to them when they play the game.

ktom said:

And btw: how exactly Hatchling's effect reactivate? You believe that the point of initiation was "when card comes into play". So what's this #2 point of initiation?

ktom said:

I thought this is already confusing (cards like Kings of Winter or Knight of Flowers). Actually many things in this game is already confusing, that's why I want to improve rules document.

ktom said:

So in your opinion this:

perpetual noob said:

is only academic interest?

Rogue30 said:

Rogue30 said:

ktom said:

Just to help me completely understand - what if the text read "Attach x Hatchling and all it's duplicates to Drogon."?

Bomb said:

Thank you. I do follow what you are saying. I think I'm a little frustrated with the timing structure in that you really need to rip apart card text to figure out when certain abilities apply. I do not believe that it should take Intro to Logic, Intermediate Logic, and Methods of Reasoning coursework to play a game or that you must memorize when and where cards may be played and which ones take precedence over others. With appropriate card labeling and updated timing structures with everything we need to know in order to properly play the game, it would require less analysis and logical sentence problem solving.

And on top of all this, the necessity to teach other players and try to justify it can be difficult as well. Granted we are speaking on potentially rare occurrences with all our language and logical debates.

Bomb said:

Even in this situation ("characters get -1, discard @ 0" vs "this 1 STR character becomes a dupe"), the end result (character gets -1 and is discarded, even while attaching as a dupe) makes a lot more sense than the specifics of the game mechanics that make it work.

ktom said:

You believe that point of initiation is "when card comes into play". So what exactly is the point of initiation which triggers this effect second time i.e. WHAT triggers it second time?

ktom said:

Oh yes, I remember, but do you want to tell me, that all necessary knowledge for answering this thread original question is in the rules documents?

Rogue30 said:

OK, now it just sounds like you're going for an "I caught you saying red when the thing is actually crimson; you're whole line of reasoning is therefore wrong" kind of thing.

More to the point, you are insisting that a passive ability can only have a "when X happens" condition. I am saying that a passive ability can have an "if X is true" condition. In this case, when the card comes into play (either the Black Hatchling or Drogon), it makes the "if you control Drogon" condition true. When that condition is true, the "attach as dupe" text activates passively. So the initial action that starts this process is the card coming into play, but it is the fact that the card coming into play made the condition "if you control Drogon" true that is the critical part of initiating the effect. What initiates it the second time is what initiated it the first time, too. The "if you control Drogon" condition is (still) true.

Look at the generic templates I mentioned before in answer to Bomb:

1. When X happens, do Y
2. If X is true, Y is also true
3. If X is true, do Y

I'm saying that #3 is a passive effect that reasserts itself. It's point of initiation is when that X is true. The Hatchling text doesn't do anything until it comes into play under your control while you control Drogon (or vice versa). As such, that second card coming into play dictates the timing, or at least the first initiation, of the "attaching as dupe" effect's resolution. If, for some reason, the first initiation is blocked, the "if you control Drogon" condition is still true, so the "attach as dupe" activates itself all over again. This is the difference between #1 and #3. #1 only happens once because X only happened once. But in #3, X continues to be true, so Y keeps initiating if it is possible for it to do so and resolve successfully.

This, more than anything, is where we disagree. I see "if you control Drogon" as a condition/play restriction part of the ability that dictates the (continuing and re-assertive) timing of the effect. You seem to see it as part of the effect itself.

Rogue30 said:

Yes. All the basic building blocks of the entire answer are in the rules documents. Anyone can do, or follow, the analysis based on what is there.

ktom said:

Continously true effect (while some condition is true) is a characteristic for constant effect. Problem with your reasoning is that you mix characteristics of both effects into one. I won't argue with you more, because I don't see the point.

ktom said:

Interesting. I wonder how many players would agree with this.

Rogue30 said:

The problem with your reasoning is that you are using too few "categories" for all the possible situations, trying to cram things into boxes where they don't fit.

Rogue30 said: