I was playing in the joust this weekend at Days, and was going up against a Martell player with the Viper out. I was playing Stark and had Meera in shadows, and though I recalled the conclusion on the boards being that Meera could not blank character ability immune Viper, I thought it best to ask for a ruling. It was deemed by Nate (and later affirmed in a casual conversation with Damon) that Meera could blank the Viper. Helped me keep the Martell player at bay and get one of my two wins in the joust.

Please ignore if I incorrectly recalled the decision that was settled on here on the forums.

No. You are recalling the ruling on the boards - which came from Nate - correctly.

I need to start coming to Days. This sort of thing (FFG gives a ruling contradictory to one they have given before) seems to happen at least once a year at Days.

What was the reasoning behind the Viper's immunity to character abilities not being immune to Meera?

As a "then" effect, the blanking potion of Meera doesn't initiate until the first part -bringing her into play - is completely successful. If she is in play when the blanking part initiates, it is initiating as a character ability (by definition). TRV is immune to character abilities.

That's the reasoning behing why TRV is immune to Meera.

The reasoning behind why he wouldn't be is, I suppose, that Meera's any phase effect is initiated while she is in shadows and is not a character ability, merely a triggered effect that happens to be printed on a character card.

So at what point does Meera get banned or errata'd to stop all this crap from happening?

Isn't it by definition a character ability because it's on a character card?

On a side note, is TRV immunity to character abilities make him an invalid target for Sorrowful man?

Slothgodfather said:

When a character card is not in play (ie in your hand, discard, etc.), it's abilities do not count a character abilities. A character has to be in play for it's abilities to count as character abilities.

Slothgodfather said:

Slothgodfather said:

First, Sorrowful Man does not target the character. At no point in the text does it say "choose the character," and if something is not chosen, it is not considered a target. Therefore, since immunity doesn't make the card invisible for the play restrictions of other cards, there is nothing stopping you from triggering the Response to bring Sorrowful Man out of Shadows after TRV is played. Of course, his immunity to character abilities means that he can ignore direct effects applied to him, so if Sorrowful Man is considered a character ability, TRV will ignore the attempt to kill him - if that's what the player chooses to do. Whether Sorrowful Man's "then" effect is considered a character ability (initiated while he is in play) that TRV would be immune to, or a character effect (initiated while he is not in play) that the TRV would not be immune to is exactly the same question we have about Meera being able to blank TRV - and exactly the same thing we have contradictory rulings on.

Khudzlin said:

It all comes down to this: when does the "then" part of an effect initiate? Does it initiate in Step 1, before you know whether the play restriction of "everything before the 'then' must be successful" is met, or does it initiate in Step 3, when you do know? FFG has always acted as if it initiates in Step 3 (lacking targets for a "then choose" part does not stop you from triggering the part before the "then"; the influence for Wendamyr's "then kneel 2 influence to stand that character" does not need to be knelt until after you figure out if the save will be canceled, etc.), so we ran with the "then" part of Meera's effect counting as an ability. Now, we seem to be told otherwise.

(People have been saying for a long time that the initiation of "then" effects needs to be better defined….)

I wish the game was simpler. TRV text says immune to character abilities and event cards. Meera Reed is a character card, who is in the game (shadows or not blah blah) or coming into the game or whatever - she is in the game, she is affecting the game by being there. Her text is doing stuff as a triggered ability. One of the things she does besides come out of shadows, is blank a/card(s). Viper has an immunity to character abilities. Therefore, she can't blank him.

This makes sense. Why do they muddy it and make it super technical and, essentially.. work. Shouldn't a game be fun?

ktom said:

ktom said:

Right now, I would say that I am strongly against any effect shifting its nature part way through resolution.

Yes, Meera's ability has separate effects linked by a "then" statement. HOWEVER, I will point out that they are not "Any phase: bring her out of shadows" and "Response: when Meera Reed is brought out of shadows by the previous ability…", and as such I think they should be treated as the same effect from the same origin point. I don't think the origin point should change to being a character when the "then" portion resolves.

That's just my two cents, but it's what makes the most sense to me, and I am always in favor of rules that make sense.

KristoffStark said:

I agree with you because of how confusing it currently is. I am thinking it was not a separate response because it can then be canceled based on targets chosen to be blanked(which maybe it should be possible to do so based on the power of the blanking effect). It could have instead become a passive ability that happens no matter what. Then there is no confusion, then TRV can be immune to it, and it would also function similarly to the way it works now. The only reason to maybe not have it as a passive ability is to keep Fortified Position from blanking her before she can choose to blank card.

I don't know. She is just a painful card from a rules stand point so far. Maybe she needs her own page in the FAQ? :-(

Bomb said:

Update: Got a response from an email to FFG about this. They are reviewing the situation, but the theory that in the heat of the moment, the implications of the word "then" and its impact on the situation were not considered, seems to be holding water. We'll have something more definitive soon.

Personally, I'd say that until we hear otherwise, we should think of the Days ruling as a fluke and go with the old ruling that Meera cannot blank ability immune characters. That may ultimately change, but for now, it makes more sense to me while FFG is reviewing the whole thing.

ktom said:

I agree. We had everything down nice and clean, before this new thing happened.

ktom said:

Nice. Did you ask about the TMP issue too?

ktom said:

Agreed. Especially since we actually have the old ruling in writing from Nate.

Ratatoskr said:

ktom said:

I was just kidding about the FAQ page.

I agree she is not that bad but she did bring up lots of questions from the get go. Changing any rulings not addressed in the FAQ just can be a little frustrating, that's all.

I understand you're getting to the bottom of everything and that's greatly appreciated. Thanks!

ktom said:

Thanks for taking the time to ask!

I dont know what FFG is doing lately but they certainly arent replying to emails. I sent in the question about burning bridges and weasels way/at the gates almost a month ago and havent heard a peep.

I'd go with triggered effect. But FFG hates meera reed so you never know.

I heard from FFG on the "official" word. Nothing has changed with Meera. Nate was asked the question, "Is Meera an effect or an ability?" He answered "effect" without getting full information about the context. Effectively, an easy answer to an easy question asked in a complex situation led to some communication gaps.

So, no changes to Meera and the Viper.

No changes to Maester's Path, either. As mentioned before, that was the players reporting the game result not knowing the ruling, not the officials determining the game result and contradicting the ruling.

Looks like the discussion can now shift to communications during events and general dissemination of rulings rather than on official self-contradiction.

ktom said:

~No, it's still FFG's fault. I can't believe Nate would say ambiguous stuff like "effect" during tournaments knowing that players make mistakes and would misconstrue it and play incorrectly! Shame FFG!

AGoT DC Meta said:

I hope that was tongue in cheek. Because administering a 51 player tournament while simultaneously answering rules questions isn't exactly the easiest thing in the world to do. For one thing, the experience lasts around 9-10 hours, which is quite a long time to be "spot on" and totally on top of everything every single minute.

I'm part of the local Meta with Nate and the other FFG staffers, so I may a bit protective of them, but I think overall they do an outstanding job at a task that frankly, I don't envy them.

If you're comments were tongue in cheek, then by all means feel free to ignore my post. ; )

Papa

Papa: So you know, the convention on the AGoT boards is to put a tilde before any comment that is meant to be sarcastic. For example:

~ Papa Khann needs to change his avatar.

The fact that Danigral put the "~" before his comment means he never meant for anyone to take him seriously. I understand the protective instinct (both because of my respect for the job FFG does and because I have run those weekend-long 50+ participant events), but I just wanted to make sure you knew Dan was, indeed, joking.