This argument is based on the fact that the save from a duplicate is not a card effect. I can not find any language in the FAQ that supports that the save from a duplicate is a card effect. If anyone finds it, let me know.

Section 3.7 does not support that the save provided by a duplicate is a character ability:

"(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 "

Emphasis mine. Section 4.2 has a parenthetical statement that claims the duplicate is a character ability, but parenthetical statements do not alter the meaning of a sentence. Per wikipedia, parentheses "contain material that could be omitted without destroying or altering the meaning of a sentence".

"(4.2) Duplicates
The text from page 19 of the Rulebook should read: “If one of your unique cards is about to leave play, as a triggered ‘Response:’ effect, you may discard an attached duplicate to save the unique card from leaving play. This includes, but is not limited to, an effect that kills, discards, returns the card to hand, deck, shadows, or removes the card from the game.”

Playing a duplicate is not considered to be playing an attachment. Duplicates may not be played during setup.

Using a duplicate to save a character is considered to be a gained triggered "Response:" action. Thus, it is treated as a triggered effect and may be canceled, but because it is gained (and therefore an ability of the card attempting to use the response), a character who is "immune to triggered effects" can be saved by using a duplicate, as a card cannot be immune to its own abilities ."

Note the end of the sentence. 3.7 is the ultimate source for determining what is a card ability as far as I can tell. 3.8 has some additional info, but continues to use the "card effect" language. There is now clear inconsistency in the FAQ as to what does and does not constitute an ability.

This results in the question:

Can a card that cancels character abilities be used to cancel a saved provided by a duplicate? If yes, why?

Wouldn't the fact that 3.7 exists within a subhead that specifically says "Card Effect Interpretation" put abilities into a subset of Card Effects? Seems like it would to me.

Oh crap, here we go again...

Just stop.

For the others: is there a way to ignore a user on these boards? Asking for a friend.

Per wikipedia, parentheses "contain material that could be omitted without destroying or altering the meaning of a sentence".

~ "Per wikipedia"? Seriously?

Just because a parenthetical contains "material that could be omitted without destroying or altering the meaning of a sentence" does not mean that a parenthetical statement holds no useful information and can be ignored entirely and completely. Not affecting the meaning of the sentence does not equate to "disposable" or "should be ignored."

Can a card that cancels character abilities be used to cancel a saved provided by a duplicate? If yes, why?

Seems to me the entire basis of your argument that a duplicate save does not count as a "character ability" depends on:

1. Taking 3.7 so literally that "gained by basic rule effect" cannot be equated to "gained by card effect."
2. Taking 4.2 so subjectively that you can completely ignore the parenthetical statement specifically naming the dupe save a card ability.

Your reasoning seems more inconsistent to me than the FAQ.

Are you really saying that because the resulting gain of the "save" ability by putting a duplicate card on something is defined/written in the rules rather than on the duplicating card itself, 3.7 doesn't apply?

And even if you are, are you really saying that because omitting the parenthetical from the sentence "Thus, it is treated as a triggered effect and may be canceled, but because it is gained, a character who is 'immune to triggered effects' can be saved by using a duplicate, as a card cannot be immune to its own abilities" doesn't change the meaning of the sentence that the statement "and therefore an ability of the card attempting to use the response" itself has no meaning and cannot be treated as a definition?

The rules of the game are not a computer program to be executed without any independent ability to think.

So an effect that cancels character abilities can be used against a dupe save because the dupe save is a character ability.

"Can a card that cancels character abilities be used to cancel a saved provided by a duplicate?"

"Oh crap, here we go again..."

"Just stop."

"The rules of the game are not to be executed without any ability to think."

You can't pay for entertainment like this.

HA HA. ILSHIPAL

Per wikipedia, parentheses "contain material that could be omitted without destroying or altering the meaning of a sentence".

~ "Per wikipedia"? Seriously?

Just because a parenthetical contains "material that could be omitted without destroying or altering the meaning of a sentence" does not mean that a parenthetical statement holds no useful information and can be ignored entirely and completely. Not affecting the meaning of the sentence does not equate to "disposable" or "should be ignored."

Can a card that cancels character abilities be used to cancel a saved provided by a duplicate? If yes, why?

Seems to me the entire basis of your argument that a duplicate save does not count as a "character ability" depends on:

1. Taking 3.7 so literally that "gained by basic rule effect" cannot be equated to "gained by card effect."
2. Taking 4.2 so subjectively that you can completely ignore the parenthetical statement specifically naming the dupe save a card ability.

Your reasoning seems more inconsistent to me than the FAQ.

Are you really saying that because the resulting gain of the "save" ability by putting a duplicate card on something is defined/written in the rules rather than on the duplicating card itself, 3.7 doesn't apply?

And even if you are, are you really saying that because omitting the parenthetical from the sentence "Thus, it is treated as a triggered effect and may be canceled, but because it is gained, a character who is 'immune to triggered effects' can be saved by using a duplicate, as a card cannot be immune to its own abilities" doesn't change the meaning of the sentence that the statement "and therefore an ability of the card attempting to use the response" itself has no meaning and cannot be treated as a definition?

The rules of the game are not a computer program to be executed without any independent ability to think.

So an effect that cancels character abilities can be used against a dupe save because the dupe save is a character ability.

The point of showing it was a parenthetical was that it is a key part of the sentence and yet was written in such a way as to make it not illogical to ignore. The only other reference to it being an ability is later in the sentence, but it does not say what type of ability it is. As 3.7 is the only other section that defines what an ability is and 4.2 doesn't give any means by which to identify what type of ability it is, the parenthetical (which can rightly be ignored by grammatical logic) is the only line within the rules that identifies the save to be a character ability.

Well we already established, per the Naval Mechanic and Brienne thread, that card effects and game effects are different entities. Therefore 3.7 is either an oversight and "game effects" (or the proper phrasing) was forgotten or it is intentionally left off (for what reason I could not say).

I am saying that 3.7 doesn't apply if you take the rules verbatim (I don't care about changing playing convention, all of these topics are around making the rulebook match playing convention and not make playing convention match the rulebook).

And rules are meant to be executed like a computer program for the most part. A significant ommission will result in two players coming to different conclusions or possibly arguing over it. Clarifying the rule book to such a degree that there can be no argument is really my ultimate goal. My posts are mostly intended to outline the flaws and make sure that there is no already existing construct within the rules that covers it so that I can explain the issue properly when it gets discussed.

I love the responses. This thread is hilarious. I also appreciate anyone who actually reads and responds in a way that furthers the discussion, like Ktom, whether or not I agree. Glad I can entertain and be productive (at least to myself) at the same time!

Honestly, if you would have worded your initial question with...

"I know we all play this as a card effect and I recognize how the assumption is made, but is there a specific rule someone can point me to that explicitly makes that irrefutable? Here's my reasoning for the question... [rest of your post]"

People would see your point more clearly... the way you word these posts it looks very much like you either have absolutely no interest in understanding the conventions with which the game is played or you're being argumentative to the point of lunacy.

If you're truly only looking for irrefutable language for specific conventions, then your approach could use some tweaking. Almost every single one of your posts where you argue a rule comes off as a person who is either deliberately obtuse or someone who is refining his online arrogance persona. Ask questions with the understanding that sometimes a game's conventions won't meet your standards for codification and the humor will continue... but at least the frustration would be reduced.

Honestly? You make these forums less fun for me to read. I saw 6 unread topics, and ordinarily I'd think "oh yay, some discussion", but this time I thought "they're ALL from mdc, aren't they?" I'm glad you can entertain yourself with whatever the hell it is you're doing, but eventually you're going to make this forum your own personal playground and no one else is going to want to play and you'll be in here talking to yourself.

I agree with everything doulos said. "Argumentative to the point of lunacy" encapsulates my feeling well.

I'm glad that ktom has the patience for you, because I absolutely do not.