ktom said:
All three would ultimately work, but I think the card-specific text errata is cleanest because it does not create a new rule that we don't really need.
Like they did with Knights of the Hollow Hill, to specify that the "you cannot benefit from income bonuses on other cards" being granted to your house card did not, in fact, exclude the agenda from granting you +2 income.
ktom said:
What you were told above is that the wording you proposed did not change the granting of immunity from a constant ability (requiring the attachment text to be forever active) to a lasting effect (not requiring the attachment text to be active beyond the triggering of the passive or triggered effect that creates it). You had the right concept, but your execution did not accomplish it. The "Nope" was to your execution, not to your theory.
OK, I misunderstood your response then, ktom. Good to know I'm not completely hosed.
After reading this, I was still a bit confused why the wording I proposed wouldn't have created the desired lasting effect. Then I realized I was treating "Once" as a single point in time, but I can see where it could be considered the same as "While" or "When", implying that the immunity depends on the attachment text remaining active and thus creating a constant effect. After looking at the way most cards that create lasting effects are worded, I think I see the difference.
Thanks.
KristoffStark said:
Like they did with Knights of the Hollow Hill, to specify that the "you cannot benefit from income bonuses on other cards" being granted to your house card did not, in fact, exclude the agenda from granting you +2 income.
Right. That is similar to this situation, but would not have addressed it if the FAQ entry was more general for such card effects. Considering the above is not immunity but something completely different, it would have needed something TOO generic to address all situations like these.
Bomb said:
KristoffStark said:
Like they did with Knights of the Hollow Hill, to specify that the "you cannot benefit from income bonuses on other cards" being granted to your house card did not, in fact, exclude the agenda from granting you +2 income.
Right. That is similar to this situation, but would not have addressed it if the FAQ entry was more general for such card effects. Considering the above is not immunity but something completely different, it would have needed something TOO generic to address all situations like these.
That's true.
I wouldn't have any problem with a line in the FAQ that says something like "a card may not be immune to an effect that grants it immunity."
Not only would that solve the problem with Battlements, it just make sense. And I'm always in favor or rules that make sense.
Beyond that, I also can't see any downside that such a rule might create.
KristoffStark said:
Not only would that solve the problem with Battlements, it just make sense. And I'm always in favor or rules that make sense.
For example, say I have the High Septon (immune to triggered effects) and put Burning Sword on him in Winter (Any Phase: Kneel Burning Sword to give attached character +2 STR and 'immune to card effects' until the end of the phase.) Under the "a card may not be immune to an effect that gives it immunity" rule, I could use Burning Sword to increase the High Septon's immunity to include non-triggered card effects (even though he would not get the +2STR) despite his natural immunity saying the Sword should be useless on him.
This is what I mean by "let's not create a new rule when following the existing templates eliminates the need for the rule."
ktom said:
KristoffStark said:
Not only would that solve the problem with Battlements, it just make sense. And I'm always in favor or rules that make sense.
That entry would be waaaay to broad for me. What happens when a card has its own immunity to the card that is trying to give it additional immunity?
For example, say I have the High Septon (immune to triggered effects) and put Burning Sword on him in Winter (Any Phase: Kneel Burning Sword to give attached character +2 STR and 'immune to card effects' until the end of the phase.) Under the "a card may not be immune to an effect that gives it immunity" rule, I could use Burning Sword to increase the High Septon's immunity to include non-triggered card effects (even though he would not get the +2STR) despite his natural immunity saying the Sword should be useless on him.
This is what I mean by "let's not create a new rule when following the existing templates eliminates the need for the rule."
Fair enough, I couldn't think of an example like that.
Talked to Damon this weekend at Days, and mentioned this card when looking at an uncut sheet of the next pack and he said that there would be an accompanying FAQ entry to make this card not problematic.
ktom said:
Taking the "cards may not be immune to an effect that gives immunity" definitely is too broad, but perhaps it could be more simply put that "cards that gain an immunity are not immune to the effect granting that immunity." Worded this way, the immunity must be granted first, and then it wouldn't be immune to only that effect if it were cyclical. In your example of the Seption, since the Septon is already immune to triggered effects, no triggered effect regardless of the type would be able to be applied to him. So he is already immune to each effect of the Burning Sword, so he never gains the "immune to card effects."
Or it would just be easier to errata the Battlements to say that the location gains immunity to card effects excluding the attached Battlements.
I personally think the second is the better option. It usually causes more problems down the line to change the rules to accommodate 1 card instead of just changing that 1 card.
ktom said:
I personally think the second is the better option. It usually causes more problems down the line to change the rules to accommodate 1 card instead of just changing that 1 card.
Seconded.
I also agree it's much easier that way. I do think it is sad that this is a new card that already requires an errata before it is even released.
-
Edited by Mathias FricotMathias Fricot said:
I think there is merit in the common sense argument: The location is immune to all non-plot effects, except for Castle Battlements because that is giving it the immunity.
Sortof like when I play with Sorrowful Man: if the player cannot pay the gold, the character gets killed (even though according to the rules choosing to pay gold you don't have instead of killing is a viable choice and thus making the card a waste of paper).
I feel like Sorrowful Man's use could be too strong if he could always kill a character where the last gold is used to play them. Right now I view him as a choke type card. I admit though, it would be nice to use against Meera Reed when she pops out during Challenges.
EDIT: Sorry for going off topic. I'll end it here. :-)
Mathias Fricot said:
Sortof like when I play with Sorrowful Man: if the player cannot pay the gold, the character gets killed (even though according to the rules choosing to pay gold you don't have instead of killing is a viable choice and thus making the card a waste of paper).
Sadly, we can't always follow "common sense" when specific templates and rules of interpretation have developed over the years. House rules can resolve a discrepancy like the Battlements, but it is important to acknowledge that the discrepancy is there instead of saying "it's obvious".