What you're looking for is "triggered character ability" vs. "character ability."

Take Bloodrider -- he has a triggered effect that is NOT a triggered character ability because it is triggered from out of play. However, his cancel is a character ability because he's in play when the cancel occurs. The reason why Bloodrider can't cancel Bloodrider though is because Bloodrider can only cancel triggered character abilities, not simply character abilities. (We agree that he couldn't cancel a character ability like Ser Jorah Mormont's right?)

It's the same with Meera Reed. Her triggered effect is not a triggered character ability because it is triggered from out of play. When her "then" effect resolves, however, she is in play so it's considered a character ability.

You can have character abilities within triggered effects that are not triggered character abilities, which is the case with Meera Reed, Bloodrider, and other cards. I'm pretty sure that is the distinction you're looking for: triggered character ability and character ability .

And for some further clarification: triggered effects and character abilities are NOT necessarily the same. Take for instance, if Meera's then effect were a separate passive (not part of her triggered effect) that happened after she came out of the Shadows. TRV would be immune to it because it's a character ability; Joffrey, however, would not be immune to it because it's not part of a triggered effect.

Wait Fatmouse is in the general discussion forum. . . . . ..

What Madness is This?!?

jack merridew said:

It's rules. You can't flame-war rules. It simply ends with, "Contact Nate and he'll tell you the same thing, or something different because he's changing the rules to reflect the new ruling."

Kennon said:

If you decide to compile this, I've started a list of rulings on my phone that fall into this category (in my opinion at least) since I started playing in September.

FATMOUSE said:

I'm surprised that it took that long for anyone to notice my sneaky way of making Fatmouse post in the general forum.

Kennon said:

~YOUR sneaky way !?!? He was replying to MY post!

Meera doesn't need clarification.

All 4 of the different "unintuitive" situations you describe are actually based on the same thing: the initiation timing of the "then" part of an effect. If you understand that, all the rest falls into place from other well established and understood rules and definitions (immunity, effect vs. ability, etc.).

But here's the thing: NOBODY truly understands the initiation timing of the "then" part of an effect. Because it has never been clearly defined anywhere in the rules or FAQ. (And BTW, yes, I'm included in that "nobody." ~ I know. Shocking, huh?)

So I'll say it again: Meera doesn't need clarification. But the initiation timing of "then" effects does. If that was cleared up for everyone, Meera would fall into place.

ktom said:

~~~No, I'm pretty sure the logic goes both ways. Obviously, the designers decided to rule it that way for whatever reason. Probably flipped a golden dragon or something.

Honestly, even if "then" effects were defined, I think Meera Reed would have gotten just as much rules flack from the community. Instead of saying, "This is what happens," we would have said, "This is what happens and how it happens within the timing structure." Obviously, the latter explanation is the more desirable one, but given the current framework of the rules there is a sole definitive way to resolve the Meera situations. Even going back to Bloodrider, his triggered effect doesn't have a "then" effect, but he still presents the same dilemma of what it means to trigger an ability on a character card that is in play vs. out of play and how it resolves once it is in play. So while it would be great if the designers clarified the timing on "then" effects, I believe the issue at large for the community, as a whole, is a lack of understanding of the rules and/or failing to subscribe to the logical framework defined by the game itself (not one's own "intuitions").

When I brought up to Nate that there was a lack of clarification on the timing of "then" effects and how the rules didn't explicitly allow for players to save cards from "then" effects, he said that (paraphrasing) while the timing of "then" effects could be clarified, it might be easier for the community if an FAQ entry was made instead that allowed saves to happen. It truly does seem that NO ONE knows how exactly "then" effects resolve, not even the designers!

FATMOUSE said:

The problem is that Meera seems like a paradox (part effect, part ability), making her "unintuitive." If the "then" timing were explained, there would presumably be clarification for why she can be part effect and part ability, with rules for how to tell it was happening. Once that predictability is provided, things fall into place - even if people don't generally remember the test that makes it predictable (the way people have trouble remembering and applying the moribund rule, for example).

FATMOUSE said:

ktom said:

I thought it was clear too, just like her coming out as a dupe was clear. Sure, all the details aren't there because we don't know exactly how "then" effects resolve, but we do know enough to say when they do/don't happen (after the previous effect fully resolves and some time before passives, even though targets are chosen earlier...yeah we don't know exactly how it happens ). I definitely understand the notion, "I don't know how my pie cooks to perfection when I put in the oven for 20 minutes at 350 F,"(by the way, have no idea if that's how you make pie ) but you don't need to know the chemistry behind cooking pie to know and understand what to do when cooking pie. It's the same with the rules. If you look at them you should see Meera Reed resolves the way she does in all those scenarios.

How exactly does the "then" effect fit into there? Beats me. I can give a potential answer, but does it really matter? Either way we know what happens. We all know the sun rises every morning. Whether it's because the world is sitting on top of a spinning turtle or a greek god is pulling it by chariot, it doesn't change the fact that the sun rises in the morning.

I actually mentioned Bloodrider not in relation to Meera Reed, but Bloodrider itself. It doesn't have a "then" effect, but it's similar to Meera Reed in that it has a triggered effect that isn't a triggered character ability, but has a character ability within in it (the cancel). Akin to Meera Reed's Any Phase trigger. Bloodrider is an example of a card that shares the same "unintuitive" "paradox" without the issue of "then" effects, which is why I don't see the ambiguity of "then" effects as the crux of the confusion over Meera Reed.

ktom said:

I agree -- the timing of "then" effects should be fleshed out, but i didn't press the issue with Nate because it seemed like he only wanted to deal with saves at the time.

FATMOUSE said:

I thought it was clear too, just like her coming out as a dupe was clear. Sure, all the details aren't there because we don't know exactly how "then" effects resolve, but we do know enough to say when they do/don't happen (after the previous effect fully resolves and some time before passives, even though targets are chosen earlier ...yeah we don't know exactly how it happens ).

FATMOUSE said:

A character ability is any effect on a character card that is initiated while the card is in play. The "cancel" effect of Bloodrider is initiated while the card is not in play. Granted, part of that initiation is to put the card into play, but that is a cost paid. It would be like saying that kneeling a fiefdom somehow happens before you initiate the the cost reduction - instead of as part of it. Granted, the cancel effect on Bloodrider resolves when the card is in play, but it is initiated while the card is in your hand. It's where the card is when the cancel is initiated, not where it is when the cancel is resolved, that makes the difference in the definition of effect vs. ability.

I'm assuming you're following along in the FAQ, and are about to tell me, "No; I pay the cost in Step 1e, so at the end of Step 1e, the Bloodrider is in play. Then, Step 1f is where the cancel is actually considered to trigger, so the Bloodrider is in play when the cancel actually goes into effect, meaning it initiates while the Bloodrider is in play." But Step 1e and 1f are all part of the same initiation. You cannot separate them out as separate and individual, rechecking things between because it all happens as part of Step 1 - which is the whole of the initiation. Let me give you an example of what I mean. Let's suppose I had an effect that said "kneel a character with STR 4 or higher to...(whatever)." I choose to kneel CS-Mel to pay that cost. So in Step 1e, I kneel her. But wait, when she's kneeling, she's only STR 3. So when I get to Step 1f and "trigger" the (whatever), I haven't really paid the cost, which means I didn't trigger the effect at all. Which means Mel shouldn't be kneeling. That's the paradox that says Steps 1e and 1f are part of the same process with no opportunity to recheck play states in-between.

And that's why "then" effects like Meera's are so screwy. "Then" effects essentially have two separate initiations - though just one trigger. The "then" part of the effect does not initiate in Step 1 (which is why Bloodrider is not similar to Meera). It has to initiate somewhere in Step 3.

ktom said:

Hm. That doesn't seem to be what the FAQ says:

(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

This seems to say that Bloodrider's effect is indeed a Character Ability. It is not, however a triggered Character Ability.

This is what throws most people at first - that the effects of Bloodrider, or Meera, or LoW Cat, or the Jumping Khal are both Triggered Effects and Character Abilities, but not Triggered Character Abilities. It's clear once it's explained to you, and the FAQ is not really ambiguous about it, but it's still counter-intuitive, and the wording is a bit unfortunate.

Or am I misunderstanding something?

My guess about the timing of "then" effects is that they happen as part of step 3 (execution) of the effect they depend on (or between it and step 4). They then follow the same substeps as a passive:

1. Initiation: checking whether the enabling effect was successful and announcing targets
2. Save/Cancel: only saves allowed
3. Execution
4. Passives

Ratatoskr said:

But, if you'd like me to be more accurate in my phrasing, "There is no part of Bloodrider that can be considered to count as a triggered ability." The post I was replying to talked about a character ability within Bloodrider's triggered effect, but that isn't true. The parts of the FAQ you have just quoted explain how it is both at the same time - a character ability and a triggered (character) effect. Not one "as part of" the other. The complete text meeting two different definitions at the same time is not similar to the "then" issue with Meera - where parts of the same text meet different definitions. So Bloodrider "in relation to itself" is not similar - at least in my view - to Meera Reed because it only has one (out-of-play) initiation while Meera has two (one out-of-play and one in-play).

Since Bloodrider can only cancel triggered character abilities, there really isn't any confusion - beyond the standard learning curve of triggered effect/ability definitions - that you cannot cancel Bloodrider with Bloodrider. There is considerable confusion as to what kind of immunity does and does not blank Meera's blanking effect. Suppose "immune to triggered abilities" existed. Could Meera blank that card?

Khudzlin said:

You are most likely correct that this is how it happens, and that the initiation - happening as part of Step 3 - is effectively passive. The only thing I would quibble about here is that since it takes place before the "Step 4: Passive" step of the main window, passive effects that happen as a result of the resolution of the "then" effect would roll into the Step 4 of the main window, not be separate.

I'm just trying to fit this into the timing structure as I understand it. Yeah, it makes sense the passives would go off in the main passive step (I hadn't thought of that), regardless of whether the then effect goes off as part of step 3 or between steps 3 and 4.

...and this was why I hoped when they pushed the reset button for LCG they would have instituted the 'chain' (like MTG or even Warhammer LCG). Bleh.

I am just glad usually you don't need to know the rules to win