ktom said:

ktom said:

ktom said:

ktom said:

ktom said:

Bomb said:

The assumption that "non-triggered effects were instantaneous as soon as the condition is met" is not necessarily true, either. It depends on the text and the type of non-triggered effect. Think about the "when revealed" text on plots. They are not "instantaneous as soon as the condition (revealing) is met." You have to count up initiative and choose First Player before they activate. The game dictates that other things happen first. Similarly, what if there is a "kill at 0" and a "discard at 0" effect that are both applicable? (Very common for a 3-STR character that gets hit with Flame-Kissed when Threat from the North is out.) They share the same condition (STR 0), but they cannot both be "instantaneous" because they conflict (if one resolves, the other can't). So the First Player decides which happens when.

This ruling is not "official" in that it was not stated specifically by anyone with rules authority from FFG. However, it is the direct (and correct) application of the official rules and FAQ to the situation. Take that as you will.

Rogue30 said:

Then where's the point of initiation for Viserys when Threat is revealed? Or playing Viserys from your hand when Threat is revealed? Saves and cancels share the same point of initiation, don't they?

ktom said:

ktom said:

ktom said:

If you don't like my interpretation, then consult with Nate, but you probably don't care.

If hatchling were passive, then it would be "When this card comes into play and if you control Drogon, attach Black Hatchling and all of its duplicates to Drogon as duplicates." Then you could cancel it.

Rogue30 said:

Rogue30 said:

Now, I will freely grant that there are inherent differences between saves and cancels. Namely, saves are directed at how an effect applies to an individual card while cancels are directed at how an effect resolves globally. As such, the creation of a cancel that would work in these sorts of situations would be much more difficult because you're trying to affect a global cancel after what amounts to an individual initiation through application. It has, however, been done in the CCG days. Take a look at this version of Areo Hotah. When he hit 0 with Threat revealed (which was worded a little differently at the time), the card effect of Threat would attempt to discard him. So he could cancel the plot's discard effect as it applied to him, then blank the plot for the rest of the phase - removing the condition that would allow the discard effect to re-exert itself. Just like the "save from terminal effect" rule. That is a little different from the way Viserys works because while Viserys' save removes him from the (ongoing) terminal state, Hotah's cancel effectively shut off the card creating the terminal state - as a cancel for this kind of situation would necessarily have to do.

So a cancel could be structured that "shuts off" a constant effect based on the "initiation" created by the application of that constant effect to a single card. It has, after all, been done in the past. Majorly confusing to anyone who doesn't want to delve deep into the timing concepts here, but technically possible.

Wharf Rats

Wharf Rats cannot be killed.

After Wharf Rats' controller wins a challenge, discard the top card of its controller's deck.

Response: After Wharf Rats comes out of Shadows, choose an opponent. That opponent takes control of Wharf Rats.

kotm, if there is a constant ability in effect that kills Wharf Rats when it comes out of the shadows, doesn't that means Wharf Rats is killed before their passive ability comes into effect?
If the passive ability prevents this after the kill occurs, then why can't the duplicate attachment ability of the Hatchling apply as well? You don't kill duplicates, you discard them in using them as a save effect, but the duplicate was not used in such a way.

I am just trying to understand the order of precedence here as I'm struggling to follow your interpretation relative to what I see in the FAQ. I cannot find in the FAQ where it tells you to resolve constant effects.

@ktom: If you can cancel constant effect, then you break this rule "Because there is no point of initiation, they cannot be canceled."

But nevermind, the point I'm trying to make is that players must be able to differentiate constant effects from passive effects without your help. It's not our fault, that rules and cards for this game are poor and designers react rarely (and years later) for such things. Seriously, FFG should write on every card box:

"This is not a stand-alone game; an A Game of Thrones: The Card Game Core Set and ktom* is required to play."

* FFG is not responsible for ktom's answers and reserves the right, that ktom can be wrong. If you believe ktom, you are doing this without any warranty and at your own risk.

Bomb said:

Bomb said:

Rogue30 said:

Note that the point of initiation I am talking about is based on applying the constant effect to a particular card, not the initiation of the constant effect itself.

ktom said:

And where do you see "cannot be saved" rule?

Rogue30 said:

Ah. I see the miscommunication here now. I'm looking at the phrase "continuous effects cannot be canceled because there is no point of initiation" and concentrating on the reason given for "cannot be canceled." You are looking at the same phrase and stopping with the absolute nature of the word "cannot." Totally understand now. Yes, if you stop with "cannot," which is absolute, then it doesn't matter if there is a point of initiation or not, the rules simply state "cancels cannot be played here."

I was taking the discussion here as "if you can show a point initiation, you would be allowed to try to cancel." Kind of like if I had a card that said "your opponent cannot play events because this card is standing," my opponent could play events if the card was not standing. The "cannot" part of that phrase is invalidated because the condition placed on it is not true.

So the answer to "where do you see a 'cannot be saved' rule" is "nowhere, but if I can define a point of initiation, the rule 'cannot be canceled because there is no point of initiation' shouldn't be applicable." I then used the fact that saves and cancels share timing related to points of initiation because of their interrupt nature to demonstrate the point of initiation.

Rogue, I sympathize with you regarding the frustration with imprecise language in AGoT templating. I have tried to justify it by reminding myself that this game does not have a large following and so works on a limited budget that can not afford to pay someone to work full time on consistency. Unfortunately, we rarely get any kind of insight into how this game is produced. Personally, if I were templating the cards, I'd just copy Magic's system because I rarely ever encounter an interaction in that game that I can't figure out (maybe there are legal issues with copying their format too closely). Outside of a competitive tournament, players can typically come to a consensus about an ambiguous interaction and potentially email Nate about it later.

You and ktom have had a lot of discussions over the years on these boards and so, I assume, have some collegial rapport. However, to an outsider, your tone comes off as somewhat rude and condescending towards ktom.

ktom said:

Ok, but "Because there is no point of initiation, they cannot be canceled" is part of definition. If you find point of initiation, then it is passive not constant. This definition pretty much says "all constant effects has no point of initiation, thus cannot be canceled". That's one thing.

The other thing is "point of initiation" - it's a game not reality. In reality everything has beginning. Even Threat. In the game you need description when it triggers/begins. If you have no description, it's constant.

Imagine an effect that played on Drogon doesn't allow duplicates attached to him. This effect is a lasting effect "during marshalling phase". Now you play Black Hatchling. What do you see now? Whenever you see at the situation on the table during marshalling phase, hatchling's text continously tries to become dupe again and again. So it cannot be passive. It works all the time. It will successfully attach himself at the beginning of challenges phase.

Rogue30 said:

So we come full circle because the inconsistency here, again, is that if the effect has no point of initiation by definition, you cannot trigger a save effect either.

"Save responses are special effects that interrupt
and prevent the killing or discarding of a card in
play. However, any costs of the killing/discarding
action must still be paid."

How can you "interrupt and prevent" something without an initiation?

For reference:

"Cancel responses are special effects that interrupt
an action and prevent its effects from resolving.
However, any costs of the canceled action
must still be paid."

Either the lack of a point of initiation prevents cancels (by definition) and saves (because the timing restrictions are exactly the same), or there is a point of initiation that allows both saves (by common practice) and cancels (if an appropriate one existed - which it does not at present, though has in the past).

Let's say you have a copy of Miri Maz Dur that says "If you control Khal Drogo, kill him." You have Khal Drogo in play with Unburnt on him. You play Miri Maz Dur. Can you "interrupt" this constant effect and save Khal Drogo? If so, wouldn't that point of initiation that you interrupt with the save also be the point of initiation you could interrupt with a cancel?

The rules do not say "you cannot cancel constant effects because they are constant effects." They say "you cannot cancel constant effects because there is no place in the timing structure in which to play the cancel." Since the place in the timing structure to play cancels and saves is exactly the same, your choices are as follows:

1. When a constant effect is applied to a card, neither cancels (by "definition") nor saves (since they share timing) can be played.
2. When a constant effect is applied to a card, it creates a point of initiation where both saves and cancels could potentially be played.
3. When a constant effect is applied to a card, it has no point of initiation that can be interrupted with a cancel (by definition), but somehow, simultaneously, has a point of initiation that can be interrupted with a save.
4. These "As long as X is true, Y must happen" effects are conditional passives with lasting (terminal) effects.

#3 is plainly inconsistent, but seems to be the heart of your reasoning. #4 is my original interpretation/argument (and functions pretty much the same as #2 would).

ktom said:

Didn't we establish that save does not work on effect (Valar kills everyone, it's not interrupted and prevented by save), but on killing (or affecting character) itself? That's why I said that save and cancel responses are different things.

Rogue30 said:

We established that saves work on the resolution of the effect related to the individual character while cancels work on the resolution of the entire effect. A local vs a global interruption that shares the same timing. Saves interrupt the initiation and resolution of an effect for a single character. Cancels interrupt the initiation and resolution of an effect for the entire environment. But the fact that they impact the resolution differently doesn't change the fact that they both interrupt the initiation and resolution of an effect in the same way with the same timing restrictions. That's why they happen in the same step of the action window.

ktom said:

BTW Do you think it's legal to play save first and then cancel?

Bomb said:

The White Hatchling reads: Creature, Dragon only.No attachments. Stealth. If you control Viserion, attach White Hatchling and all of its duplicates to Viserion as duplicates.

As a result, he _has_ to be in play as a character in order for that passive text to take effect. In my view, that means he's around long enough to hit terminal effect. However, I am curious how that might interact with rulings around Ambush from the Plains. A unique character retrieved from the discard pile that attachs as a duplicate if you already have a copy in play does not get discarded at the end of the phase. I would assume that if you had Core Set Khal Drogo in hand and triggered his ability with a different version already in play that it would attach as a dupe as well, and not leave at the end of the phase.

I guess I see the timing like this:

Shadows Phase Action: Hatchling comes out of shadows.

Point of initiation (Step 1): The continuous effect of Threat kicks in and renders the character terminal.

(Step 2 - Save/Cancel) Short of an odd combination of card I don't believe exists*, there is no save or cancel.

Step 3 - Hatchling becomes Moribund - Discard Pile

Step 4 - The Hatchling's passive ability kicks in attaching it as a dupe (There isn't Moribund-Duplicate**, since in any other case the 2nd copy of a unique card enters play _as_ the dupe)

Step 5 - Skip the responses

Step 6 - There's no moribund card to leave play.

* I'm thinking of an event that says "Kneel target character to save it," with a location in play that says "Knelt characters are +3 STR."
** I suppose this is my big contention. I couldn't tell if there was a consensus or an appeal to hte developers.

Rogue30 said:

Just so. There aren't any particular reasons I can think of to do so, unless you had a location in play that said "Return cancelled events to hand at the end of the phase in which they were cancelled. You could play "Die by the Sword" and have your opponent exhaust a dupe, then Paper Shield your own event, recovering the DbtS at the end of the phase.

And ignore my previous post... I missed the entire 2nd & 3rd pages of the discussion, and I'm actually having a hard time telling what the final decision was, or if someone picked up the phone and called FFG.

ktom said:

ktom said:

Thank you for your input ktom.

I still struggle to follow the "cannot be killed" logic as it just seems to follow the same rules as the "If you control X, attach Y as a duplicate" as a passive ability. I understand the "cannot be killed" is contradictory to "kill X if their strength reaches 0", but if constant abilities apply before passive abilities according to the point of initiation, then I don't understand why you use the passive ability for "cannot be killed" to pull them out of the moribund state to keep them alive vs pulling them out of the moribund state to attach them as a duplicate if the condition applies. To me it's the same thing as using any one characters ability in the moribund state and being able to resolve it.

You also say that "cannot be killed" is at the same time as the constant "kill". The "cannot be killed" is a passive ability, so how can that be? This is where I struggle with the consistency of the game engine that is in place.

Bomb said:

Remember, passive abilities are things that initiate automatically when their play restrictions are met, whether a player wants them to or not. Constant effects are ones that are just always true. What is the play restriction on CBK that initiates it? Or, looking at it another way, it doesn't do you any good to have a passive "cannot be killed" kick in during Step 4 if the kill resolves in Step 3.

Admittedly, it can get a little confusing in that there are some constant effects that have conditions to them (like "while Melisandre is standing, Asshai characters get +1 STR) that start to look like play restrictions on passive effects, but even those are missing from CBK.

ktom said:

I'm sorry, but how do you expect players to learn what is what, if you say that Hatchling is passive?

Rogue30 said:

The "if you" wording is particularly difficult because it is used in both the play restrictions of passive effects and the conditions on constant effects. Doesn't change the fact that a passive effect activates whether you want it to or not when its play restrictions are met and a constant effect is always true, provided any conditions placed on it are also true.

ktom said:

So, do you have some method to differentiate them or you just must remember by card title which is which?

If you control a N character, Faceless Man gains a P icon. - is this passive?

Isn't "if you control" always true or always false, while card says nothing about "when"?