Cat o'the Canals vs Joust characters

By Bolzano2, in 2. AGoT Rules Discussion

Posted at

Bomb said:

Keywords are card effects. Deadly is a keyword.

There are framework events and steps enforcing certain keywords. Is Stealth a game mechanic because it has its own window of being enforced?

If you ask me, I would say yes. More precisely, I'd say that Stealth is a card effect that changes a game mechanic. But, clearly, it's not the expected answer here :)

Bomb said:

Icons is not necessarily a good example of a card effect because all they are are properties of a character card. They allow the character to participate in specific challenges and are also used as a checked condition for certain effects.

Can't I say the same for Joust or No Attachments? But ok, let's assume keyword are only card effects.

Bomb said:

Specifically, a card effect is something one card can do to the game state or another card. Basically, any printed text on the card is considered a card effect.

Cat O' Canals is immune to any opponents card effects. This means absolutely everything printed on an opponents card that can directly affect characters. Pyat Pree changes how claim(a game mechanic) is resolved. Pyat Pree does nothing specifically to a character. Because claim is not a card effect, it can be used as a way to kill Cat O' Canal.

Also deadly does nothing directly to the character. Deadly arise the necessity to check a certain game condition. If condition is true, is the defending player that targets and kills a character. What about the situation in which Deadly is among both attacking and defending characters? If there is a defending character with deadly, it is not immune to Cat (which is also defending), because is not an opponent card. So "deadly" is not on an opponent card. When Cat is defending, deadly is not even checked? I don't believe so.

So, "who controls the most deadly characters" is checked anyway, right? And this is checked globally, looking at cards from both player. Is not an OPPONENT CARD who rises this check. And when this is checked, is NOT AN OPPONENT card who targets Cat, but the defending player itself.

Think at this. "Steffon is immune to characters". The opponent has two fictional characters. Jaime: "kneel Jaime to choose and kill a character", and Varys: "kneel Varys to choose an opponent. That opponent must choose and kill a character he controls". Jaime, clearly, cannot kill Steffon. But if Varys chooses the controller of Steffon, can that player choose to kill Steffon? I believe he can. Why is the deadly thing different from this?

What am I missing?

If you don't want to answer me, I understand it. This discussion must be quite frustrating. I'll take for true that Cat is immune to deadly. :)

Anyway, Thank you all for yours every-present explainations. I really appreciate your work and efforts.

Posted at

ktom said:

Bomb said:

Game mechanics are outlined specifically as rules on how you play the game and how you can use cards to play the game. Card effects are what cards in the game do or can do to the state of the game, to other cards in play, or to players of the game.

Looking at it in yet another way, card effects are things that happen in the game because a particular card is there telling you to do it. Game mechanics/effects are things that happen in the game because the rules tell you to do it - whether any particular card or card text is present or not.

Don't make the mistake of thinking that because only the word "Deadly" appears on the card, with a full explanation for what to do when the word "Deadly" appears on a card sitting in the rule book, that the full resolution is not a card effect. You need a card with the word "Deadly" on it before the effect even exists in the game. This is not true for declaring characters with the appropriate icon as an attacker or defender. That will always need to heed that rule when declaring a challenge, no matter what other cards or effects are present.

See the difference? Deadly is a card effect, even though the full explanation for how to resolve it is provided in the rule book, because you never even consider it until a card with the word "Deadly" shows up in the game. Claim is not a card effect because you will have to consider it no matter what cards show up in the game.

Your idea of "pre-existing" with Cat works well enough, but it works because immunity only protects from things that work directly on the immune card.

(Deadly - and military claim for that matter - works directly on the character they choose, btw. The character is chosen and then killed because that effect is initiating/resolving. It doesn't matter who is doing the choosing, only what is chosen - and what happens as a result. Deadly is different from claim in that claim initiates and resolves because the game says so; Deadly initiates and resolves because there is a card that says so. That's why Cat is not immune to claim, but is immune to Deadly.)

Ok, it all makes sense, except two thing:

- Why deadly is an OPPONENT card effect (especially when present on both attacking and defending characters)?

- Why the example in my post above (with Steffon, Jaime and Varys) is different? Was the example wrong?

Thanks.

Posted at

Ikaros said:

Ok, it all makes sense, except two thing:

- Why deadly is an OPPONENT card effect (especially when present on both attacking and defending characters)?

- Why the example in my post above (with Steffon, Jaime and Varys) is different? Was the example wrong?

Thanks.

Deadly is not checked if no characters have it. It's like any other passive ability in challenge resolution. If they exist, then they are checked. The only time Deadly is enforced is when the attacking player has more characters with the Deadly keyword on them. Instead of having a block of text that describes what Deadly does on each card that would have it, the game designers decided to just make it a keyword that is defined in the core rule book that everyone knows and understands. Would your question be different if we replaced the text "Deadly" with the definition of Deadly in the core rule book on each and every Deadly card? It's still represented as a passive effect.

Keywords can be Passive effects(Deadly, Vigilant, Vengeful, Stalwart, Infamy), an effect that adds play restrictions(Joust restricts the player, Stealth restricts the character), triggered effects(Ambush), or some constant effect(Intimidate, Melee). Regardless, they are still card effects.

The example in your post above is still a card effect. It just not create some game mechanic. Just because the card effect's cost is to choose a player, doesn't mean that player isn't choosing a character for the card effect to kill. It's still a card effect.

Posted at

A little more specific to your questions to go along with Bomb's (quite correct) general answers:

Ikaros said:

- Why deadly is an OPPONENT card effect (especially when present on both attacking and defending characters)?

Is that "your" effect because you are triggering it? Your opponent's effect because you need to know how many locations he has in order to resolve? Both?

It's probably a little clearer to see that the effect is "yours" because you are triggering it. The effect "belongs" to the person who controls the card that contains the text that is initiating.

Deadly initiates because the attacker has participating characters with the keyword. If there are no attackers with Deadly, you never even get to initiating or resolving the effect. So "Deadly" is considered to be the attacker's card effect because its initiation depended on cards he controlled. Note that this is the same reason Stealth is a card effect, not a game effect, even though there is a framework event for when to resolve it. If there are no attackers with Stealth, that framework event never happens. So the initiation of it depends on the card, not the game's timing structure. When you can use stealth and if you can use stealth are two different things. Don't make the mistake of thinking the "stealth goes here" slot in the flowchart makes stealth a game effect - because without the card, the slot remains empty.

Now, let's say I have a card that says "choose and kill a character with Renown." When I trigger that effect and start looking for a character with Renown to target, we don't say that the character's Renown is resolving, do we? Of course not, because in that situation, Renown is only being used as a play restriction or target requirement - not initiating or resolving as an effect. The same is true in your Deadly situation. Once Deadly initiates, it resolves by counting the participating characters with Deadly. So when it is counting, the Deadly on the counted cards is not considered to be resolving, any more than Renown would be if it were counting the participating characters with Renown.

Ikaros said:

- Why the example in my post above (with Steffon, Jaime and Varys) is different? Was the example wrong?

With your hypothetical Varys ("kneel Varys to choose an opponent. That opponent must choose and kill a character he controls"), what is initiating, choosing, and killing the character? Or more simply, why does the character die? When Varys chooses an opponent, the opponent does not "become" the effect. Varys is still the effect that is resolving. All the opponent is doing is choosing the character. There is no difference, in terms of "initiate-save/cancel-resolve," between your Varys and your Jaime. Always look at what is being chosen and killed, never at who is doing the choosing.

Now, before you say it (and someone always does), your hypothetical Varys is not the same as Pyat Pree. Pyat changes the way claim is resolved, but when the character is chosen and killed, it is the claim effect that is initiating and resolving, not Pyat himself. But in your Varys situation, the player who chooses the character does not become an intermediate effect. Players cannot be game effects. They certainly aren't card effects. Player execute and/or use effects, but they can never be effects in their own right. Only cards and game rules can be. So when the character is killed for your hypothetical Varys, it must be a card or game effect doing the killing.

So your example was wrong in that Varys first choosing an opponent who then identifies the character that dies does not change the fact that it is Varys who kills the character, not the player. If I tell you to choose Kris or Tom, then I shoot the one you choose, do you go to jail for making the choice or do I for pulling the trigger?

Posted at

Thanks.

All of your argumentation is straight forward to me. I did the same reasoning too, after your latest great explainations.

The only "black holes" in my thoughts were that it was unclear to me this foundamental thing:

"If there are no attackers with Deadly, you never even get to initiating or resolving the effect, even if there are defending characters with Deadly". It's not so intuitive to me, but I can accept it.

Also, I was completely sure my example on Varys and Jaime was correct. So, always get the source of an effect to check immunities! No matter how many steps there are in the middle, except when the effect changes game mechanics.

And yes, I know "my" Varys is completely different from Pyatt Pree. I don't know if you remember ours discussions about Cersei Lannister and Victarion Greyjoy. I did not. And I treasured them (at least I hope I did it).

Posted at

Ikaros said:

Also, I was completely sure my example on Varys and Jaime was correct. So, always get the source of an effect to check immunities! No matter how many steps there are in the middle, except when the effect changes game mechanics.

For example, I have a 2-STR character that says "choose and kill a character with lower STR." You have a 3-STR "immune to event" character. I play an event that gives my character +2 STR, then use my character to kill to kill yours. No problem, because there is another initiation (my character ability) between the event's initiation and killing you character.

But if m event says "Choose a character you control. That character gets +2 STR. Then choose and kill a character with STR lower STR." Now, your "immune to events" character is safe because there is no other initiation between the event's initiation and killing your character. (Ok, technically the "then" part of the event is a new initiation - but it's still from the event source, right?)

Posted at

ktom said:

Ikaros said:

Also, I was completely sure my example on Varys and Jaime was correct. So, always get the source of an effect to check immunities! No matter how many steps there are in the middle, except when the effect changes game mechanics.

Kind of. The thing to recognize is that once a card effect like Pyat changes the way a game mechanic resolves, it is done. Then the game mechanic initiates. But when a card effect like your Varys chooses a player, who chooses a character, etc., there is nothing else initiating before the character actually dies. So, always get the source of an effect to check immunities. To do so, follow the initiations of effects.

For example, I have a 2-STR character that says "choose and kill a character with lower STR." You have a 3-STR "immune to event" character. I play an event that gives my character +2 STR, then use my character to kill to kill yours. No problem, because there is another initiation (my character ability) between the event's initiation and killing you character.

But if m event says "Choose a character you control. That character gets +2 STR. Then choose and kill a character with STR lower STR." Now, your "immune to events" character is safe because there is no other initiation between the event's initiation and killing your character. (Ok, technically the "then" part of the event is a new initiation - but it's still from the event source, right?)

Ok. But not sufficient to tell :) What about Moment of Glory, regarding this way of reasoning? I think it's considered a "lasting" effect that finally resolves later, even if players may take player actions in between (i.e. initiations). So Cat is immune to moment of Glory, but all characters immune to triggered effects are not.

Posted at

Ikaros said:

Ok. But not sufficient to tell :) What about Moment of Glory, regarding this way of reasoning? I think it's considered a "lasting" effect that finally resolves later, even if players may take player actions in between (i.e. initiations). So Cat is immune to moment of Glory, but all characters immune to triggered effects are not.

A "lasting effect" is one that, despite having resolved, is still applicable for a set duration. They tend to be worded as "until" something happens. What you are looking at in Moment of Glory is something a little different. The event resolves and creates something like a lasting effect - in that the initiation and resolution of the event creates something that you have to deal with after its resolution - but that something has its own initiation and resolution. After all, it's not like the "after the challenge resolves..." effect created by MoG is "applicable" to anything over the duration of the challenge - which might not resolve at all. So the event is creating a passive effect that initiates and resolves after the challenge resolves.

So, when you get to the resolution of the challenge, the "delayed initiation passive" (for lack of any other term) created by the event initiates. So there is the new initiation trying to kill a character that you have to be concerned about in terms of immunities and sources. Is it an event effect? No, because even though it was created by an event earlier in the challenge, it is not the event that is being played/initiated at this point. Is it a triggered effect? No, for the same reasons. You have to resolve the "after the challenge resolves, kill..." effect whether you want to or not. Is it a game mechanic? Again, no. Because it wouldn't be happening at all if a card hadn't been played. (If it's not in the rules document, it's not going to be a game effect.) So the "delayed initiation passive" is a card effect, but not a triggered effect, or an event effect. So Cat is immune, but pretty much no one else.