dormouse said:

I think this came up in one of the threads regarding what exactly an effect is when referenced by other cards.  Other confusions arise because the term effect is overloaded.  Sometimes it refers directly to a triggered effect by an opponent.  Sometimes it's the effect of struggle resolution, other times it's a story card effect.  Which of these are actionable, which are just vague grammer, etc. 

Some possible examples:

"Dark Quagmire cannot be chosen as the only target of a triggered effect. At the beginning of each player's story phase, that player must remove one of his success tokens from attached story."  Would this make it immune to Repo Man?  (Especially relevant given the wording on Chess Prodigy about passive effects based on a trigger)

Combine, Dark Quagmire, Guardian of the Key, and the story card that all players name a character or support card and you destroy all copies of that card.  "Disrupt: Exhaust Guardian of the Key to cancel 1 effect that chooses a support card as a target."  So, there are card effects, story effects, etc.  Does "effect" wrap "card effect" and "story card effect"? 

Also, in this situation, is winning the story a "triggered effect"?  It certainly seems like it has a triggering condition of winning the story, but perhaps that's not a trigger.  If 'trigger' is only *EVER* for the bolded Action, Response, Etc, then that removes most of the issue there, but we should fix the Chess Prodigy.

Here's a fun question... Say somehow that the aforementioned story ends up being won, but through some combination of events, the only thing left in play is the Dark Quagmire card.  Can it be the target of that story card's effect?  What if both people choose it?

Here's more for the what is an effect quetion:  "After an opponent wins a story but chooses not to trigger its effect, exhaust Field Researcher to trigger that story's effect as if you had won the story.(It still goes to the winning opponent's won story pile.)"  This seems to imply that a story card's text is a triggered effect since the opponent must "choose not to trigger its effect" for Field Researcher's text to apply. 

And this one:  "Action: Trigger a non-conspiracy story card in your won story pile. Shuffle it back into the story deck before its effect resolves."  Clearly the first part (the Action) can be canceled, but what about the story re-resolution?  It's been triggered?

And another for "what is an effect":  "If your opponent has put a character into play due to a card effect this turn, reduce the cost to play Intervention by 2."  So, let's say we have enough cost reduction on the table to lower the cost of playing a card to zero (that Miskatonic dude that lowers the cost of investigators can do it).  I can now play this card, for 0 cost.  Was i putting this character into play due to a card effect (i.e. the cost lower)?   It becomes more relevant when considered with Stalking Hound:  "After an opponent's character enters play due to a triggered effect, put Stalking Hound into play from your hand or discard pile."  This seems to imply that there are card effects that put characters into play that are not triggered effects.

"Disrupt: Exhaust Underground Asylum and pay 1 to cancel an effect that would cause a character to go insane."  Combat struggles?  How about Zann's ability?  "If you win a (T) struggle in which Erich Zann is participating, instead of the normal struggle effects, you choose which of your opponent's participating characters goes insane."  If the opponent uses Zann's ability, is this now the effect that can be cancelled?  (Probably not in this last case since Zann's ability is passive)

Anyway, I think this shows some of the possible confusion about what exactly an effect is, especially when combined with the word 'trigger' that happens a lot.

KallistiBRC said:

I think one example was the ability of Performance Artist:

Disrupt: Sacrifice Performance Artist to cancel the effects of a character or support card ability.

Since card rules are supposed to trump general rules this could be interpreted to allow disrupting passive card effects since the ability doesn't include the word 'triggered'.

KallistiBRC said:

KallistiBRC said:

Honestly no I don't not when the parts that actually reference Passives and Triggered effects are explicit. There is literally no other conceivable interpretation of those passages that I can come up with. You don't have to read the entire rulebook cover to cover, nor the FAQ, you can just go to the sections that deal with the question at hand what is a triggered effect or what is a passive and the answer is right there. Black and white (well black and tan).

Are you honestly saying that you can read either of those sections and come up with any logical argument? The bit with Chess Prodigy is a serious piece of inference. To me it comes down to one of two things, someone hasn't thought to look at the two sections which are actually about the question or it is based on a person wanting a thing to be a certain way and trying to rules lawyer it into being, and ignoring the two parts that actually discuss what a passive and triggered effect are and how they are differentiated in the game.

KallistiBRC said:

I have yet to see any argument that says it needs to be clarified. Seriously when you have two sections which no one has been able to come up with an argument to refute clearly saying the exact same thing in sections labeled Passive and Triggered effects respectively, in order to support an obvious interpretation which uses species reasoning in an attempt to reach a conclusion that the example is not even addressing.

How would you alter the Chess Prodigy example that still gets across the exact same thing but avoids the word trigger (which is precisely what is happening, despite the effect not qualifying as a triggered effect)? Oh and it has to not allow for any other possible interpretation, no matter how poorly read. I couldn't do it. Then again, Damon comes across as a pretty smart guy. Perhaps he has some magic turn of phrase that will better illustrate how the mechanics of the game work.

I'll certainly applaud him if he can.

 After reading all of your examples for Damon I see where someone could easily get confused without referring to the relevant sections.

I can see someone stating that the cards may be trying to bend or break the rules and therefor the Golden Rule is in effect, though I still think that is not a well founded argument, and the burden of proof would be on that debater since the rulebook and FAQ due specifically state what a triggered effect and a passive are, they do not define what an effect that triggers is, but since it sometimes does and sometimes does not fit the very specific description of what a triggered effect is, I think that the right ruling is pretty easy to determine, All Triggered effects are effects that trigger, but not all effects that trigger are triggered effects.

On those grounds I withdraw my thought that there is no need for any type of clarification. Clearly something needs to be said.

Get to it Damon! Work that magic! 

OH, here's one more I just happened to find:

Like a Moth:  "Action: Choose a character. Until the end of the phase, lower that character's printed skill to 0."

Is this card really intended to lower the printed skill? just the skill? 

There are lots of cards that validate off the printed skill ("exhaust all characters with printed skill less than 3" etc) but there are *very* few effects adjust the printed skill of a card.  In fact, the only ones I can think of are Like A Motha card going insane.

jhaelen said:

There is a lot of confusion about Repo Ma and Attachments  (At least in my case).

I would like to know if Repo Man can handle Snow Graves aka play it back to the opponent's discard pile (FAQ text about taking control of attachments is quite confusing in relation to Repo Man).

when you take the control of an attachment you must attach it to a CARD you control (cf faq), if you can't do it, you can't steal the card. With the Repoman you can't steal the snow grave because it is attached to a discard pile, not to a CARD.

"If that card is an attachment, immediately attach
it to an eligible card you control (following all
requirements on the card). If you cannot, then
you may not take control of the attachment."

Dadajef said:

That's part of what makes my example upthread tricky:

What happens when Repo Man's ability is used to take control of the Infernal Obsession (Summons of the Deep F51) support card attached to a character (your opponent has committed to the same story)?

You discard the IO (It's written on the card > if the control of the IO change, discard it). If the attached character was committed, you removed it from the story (you regain the control of your character) as says the faq : "Any time a player gains control of a committed character during a story, that character is removed from the story."

Dadajef said:

Attach to a non-Ancient One character.
While attached, you gain control of attached character. (If control changes again, discard Infernal Obsession from play.)

I thought "If control changes again" means the attached character not the Infernal Obsession by itself.

If you take control of the IO, you remove it from the attached character. The controller of the character changes, so the IO is discarded (or you will have to attach the IO to one of your character which is useless > your IO on your character to say you are the controller of a character you control already).

Dadajef said:

The FAQ (1.3) says:

If a card effect allows you to take control of a card, move that card into your playing area. If that card is an attachment, immediately attach it to an eligible card you control (following all requirements on the card). If you cannot, then you may not take control of the attachment.

I'm thinking that with IO, since you cannot immediately attach it to an eligible card you control, you may not take control of the attachment.  So there really is no question in a sense, because you can't take control of IO in any case.

TheProfessor said:

In this case, actually, i think a careful examination of the timing is in order:

1) KallistiBC has played IO on Dadajef's character Bob.

2) Dadajef win's the combat struggle with his Repo man.  (Dadajef is just too strong an opponent for me to fight off)

3) The passive effect kicks in,must resolve.  He chooses the IO.

4) He moves IO to his side,attaches it to his character Alice that is just sitting around.  (Thus completing the entirety of Repo's effect).  He gains control of Alice.  Doesn't really matter that he already had control of Alice, as that's not one of the requirements of the card (i.e. attach to an opponent's character).

5) The resolution of the IO's effect now must kick in (it's also passive). 

6) The IO card is no longer attached to Bob, so Bob heads back to Dadajef's side.

7) The "if control changes again" kicks in,IO is discarded from Alice.

At least that's my interpretation.  I think it is still FAQ worthy as the question comes up Frequently.  Hehe...  FAQ... Frequently... sigh.

Also note, while Snow Graves is immune to Repo, Repo can still take cards that attach to Story Cards due to another prevision in the FAQ that explicitly allows that. 

Anyway, the main lesson to be learned here is to not trybeat Dadajef when he control's Bob. 

 Hmm...  Agreed that a FAQ entry is appropriate.  I would assume that the moment IO is detached from Bob, Bob returns to ownerIO is discarded.  I would think this happens before the attachment can occur.  If I'm right, then IO could not be attached (because it is discarded first),thus could never have been stolen in the first place per the FAQ.

But, you are right - the question is about timing.  

KallistiBRC said:

However, there was a disagreement about 7) with the reasoning Ahzrab mentioned above. I'm not 100% sure about it either, hence it's probably FAQ-worthy.