Three scenarios, each one Fear of Winter is in play, and opponent has no influence.

1. Opponent plays Catelyn Stark (LOW) from hand. I play Seasick to cancel the triggered effect. Can I cancel Cat's ability? Does Cat end up in play?

2. Opponent brings Meera Reed out of shadows, using their last gold. I play Seasick to cancel the triggered effect. Can I cancel Meera's ability of blanking? Does Meera end up in play?

3. Opponent puts Bloodrider into play to cancel my character ability. I play Seasick to cancel the triggered effect. Can I cancel Bloodrider''s ability of cancelling my character ability? Does Bloodrider end up in play?

Card text:

Catelyn: Challenges: Put Catelyn Stark into play from your hand, knelt as a defender during an or challenge initiated against you. At the end of the phase, if Catelyn Stark is still in play, return her to your hand.

Meera Reed: Any Phase: Bring Meera Reed out of Shadows and into play by paying the rest of her gold cost. Then choose 1 non-plot card (2 instead if it is Winter) and treat its printed text box as if it were blank until end of the phase.

Bloodrider: Response: Kneel 2 influence and put Bloodrider into play from your hand to cancel the effects of a character ability just triggered.

Seasick: Response: Cancel a triggered effect unless its controller kneels 1 influence.

jmccarthy said:

jmccarthy said:

jmccarthy said:

Thanks for the clarification. Competing examples always helps me understand.

Just for the record, because I think this should be the reference thread for Bloodrider (and also because I want confirmation from an higher office):

Is it correct to assume that Bloodrider cannot cancel the Response of another Bloodrider?

Bloodrider's ability cancels triggered character abilities. Itself it is a triggered effect, and it is a character ability, but it is not a triggered character ability, because it was triggered from out of play.

The situation is analogous to the question whether Bloodrider can cancel Meera's ability (which it can't). Cf. this thread, icluding reply by Nate.

Correct. Anything triggered from out-of-play is considered an "effect," not an "ability," even if it is on a character. So Bloodrider's play restrictions are not met if you want to try using a second to cancel a first.

how about cancel cat(low) or drogo(cs) by bloodrider?

Same as sea sick, you will cancel the ability, and play your blood rider, the player with cat or drogo will simply trigger the effect again for their hand until you run out of cancels or let it through. In fear of winter conditions this still applies to cat and drogo as the card never comes into play when it is cancelled.

Edit: In fear of winter conditions you could play 1 bloodrider to cancel, thats your card for the turn, then they can trigger the effect on cat/drogo again and still put them into play.

Underworld40k said:

Not so. Cat and CS Drogo are triggered from out of play and can thus not be cancelled by Bloodrider. Cf. the posts by ktom and myself right above.

Ghh, after all my good work yesterday undone by the flimsy and tired grey matter between my ears.

On a related note, is there a section in the faq im missing that spells out that out of play character abilities are considered effects? Had a look and cant seem to spot it (although with my brain currently drowning in a poison of its own making i may well have read it a dozen times over and not seen it...). Or is it one of those rulings that FFG have had for years since before i even picked up my cards?

The terminology is highly counter-intuitive and a bit messed up, if you ask me, but ultimately, the FAQ sorts it out.

Three FAQ paragraphs are of importance here (emphasis mine):

(3.6) Triggered Effects
Any effect that a player chooses to execute is
considered a "triggered effect." Thus any effect
that begins with a "Phase:" or "Response:"
is a triggered effect. Also note that playing
an event card is thus considered a triggered
effect. A "triggered ability" is a triggered effect
printed on a card already in play.

(3.7) Card Abilities
"Card abilities" (i.e. "Character ability,"
"Location ability," or "Attachment ability")
refers to anything in a card's text box, except
for traits, keywords, and flavor text. "Card
abilities" also refers to any abilities (again,
keywords and traits are excluded) gained by
card effects

(3.10) Card Ability Types
[...]
Triggered Abilities: Any ability on a card in
play that begins with "Phase:" or "Response:"
is a triggered ability. These abilities are
optional, and must be triggered by the player
controlling the card at the appropriate time
for their effect(s) to occur. An example of a
triggered ability is the Dominance: effect on
Cersei Lannister (CORE L39).

So, the effect of the Jumping Khal or LoW Cately is a Triggered Effect as per 3.6, it is a Character Ability as per 3.7, but it is not a Triggered Character Ability as per 3.10, because the card is not in play when the ability is triggered. Bloodrider cancels only Triggered Character Abilities, however.

As I said, a bit counterintuitive. But that's how things roll.

Cheers Ratatoskr, read all of those on their own but it really needs all 3 of them together to appear 'obvious' (well, as obvious as FFG will make it). Its the LotR iron throne and death by payne that has been causing us headaches atm, esp with Meera.

Underworld40k said:

In this thread there's a wealth of information about how Meera works, including the Death By Payne issue. Cf. Reply #48 et seqq. in particular. The Iron Throne is entirely analogous to Bloodrider.

if bloodrider come into play to cancel a char's save(step2 of the VM),will it be killed in step3?

General consensus is that when it comes to passive and triggered effects, if the character is not there for initiation, it is not subject to resolution.

ktom said:

Did we have word from FFG on this recently? Because this is at least the second time you flip-flopped on this. Back in February, you convinced me it was exactly the other way round. In August last year you said what you said here. ~Make up your mind, will ya?

That said, I've sent that question to FFG twice and haven't received an answer. ~Maybe I'm on some kind of blacklist or something.

I think Valar is different from Wildfire Assault in that aspect. To me, Wildfire Assault does its kill effect during Step 3 Resolution. Step 1 Initiation is for choosing 3 characters not to die, and Darkstar is ineligible for this.

Valar, on the other hand, initiates it's effect during Step 1, thus allowing saves to be made among eligible to be killed characters during step 2. If Darkstar enters during Step 2 because of Maester of the Suns save effect, it should not be subject to the kill effect. Otherwise, I am struggling to see the point of Step 1. You look at all eligible characters to die in Step 1 and thus choose who you want to save from the kill effect based on what characters were present in Step 1 during Step 2.

I also don't really know. It's a tricky situation overall.

There was a hypothetical situation post I made a few weeks ago where if Timmett Son of Timmett's ability were reversed, would he be eligible to be killed if he stood up from saving Tyrion during a Valar. I thought we agree that he would not be killed because that is after kill effects initiation.

I couldn't get to the August link you posted.

Ratatoskr said:

Did we have word from FFG on this recently? Because this is at least the second time you flip-flopped on this. Back in February, you convinced me it was exactly the other way round. In August last year you said what you said here. ~Make up your mind, will ya?

I happen to think the general consensus is wrong. I still think that when a non-targeted effect resolves (eg, Valar, Balerion), it shouldn't matter if the character was there for initiation or not because it is the (untargeted) resolution that matters. And since it is not targeted, it applies to everything in play. But others have a really hard time with that, not feeling comfortable breaking the initiate-resolve chain for the character that came into play, so I said what the general consensus amongst players seems to be, even though I disagree.

It may have been ruled by FFG at some point, or I may have just gotten tired of explaining to people why I think they're wrong. I don't remember.

So that's the reason for the "switch." I still think the answer from February is the right answer, but it felt like an uphill battle, so I threw in the towel. A definitive answer from FFG is probably the best thing.

In the case of Valar/Wildfire and Maester of the Sun/Darkstar/Bloodrider, since an effect is executed after the save opportunity (in this case the kill), how can Darkstar and Bloodrider not die? They enter play in Step 2 and then the kill effects are executed in Step 3 aren't they?

mdc273 said:

Bomb said:

ktom said:

I think I mis-spoke.

The scenario that was reversed was what if Clansman must stand to save Tyrion. So, if Timett stood to save Tyrion from Valar, would he then be killed by Valar? I had though we came to a point where he would not be killed by Valar in the discussion, but I can't recall and can't seem to find that forum topic right now.

Bomb said:

In the case of Darkstar and Bloodrider entering play in Step 2, would they have an opportunity to be saved? I can see why the concensus would be the way it is if the framework wouldn't allow the save. I would imagine they do get a save opportunity as there is an effect waiting to resolve for which they can be saved, even though they weren't in play for the "trigger" of the effect.

My assumption was that the only reason to say that an effect triggered in step 1 was to indicate that it in fact is going to resolve if nothing happens to prevent and/or modify it. Knowing it's triggering means you know you have to cancel/save or it will successfully resolve it's effect on all affected parties. Is that not what it represents?

mdc273 said: