Jump to content

Welcome to Card Game DB
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
Photo

Dragonglass Dagger + stealth

- - - - -

Best Answer ktom , 19 December 2016 - 03:42 AM

The immune character's ability IS affected by the opposing stealth

 

I disagree with this statement. 

 

When resolving the attacking character's stealth ability, the stealth ability on the defending character is not actively resolving on anything. As such, it cannot be said to be interacting with anything in that moment, either. Even if it were, the only thing the defending character's stealth could be interacting with is the defending character itself - giving it the status of "with stealth" for the purpose of resolving the attacking character's stealth.

 

Effectively, the "...without stealth controlled by the defending player..." text of the stealth definition is a targeting requirement. The characteristics of the potential targets (in this case, whether or not they have a viable instance of the "stealth" keyword) do not "interact" with the resolving ability. Rather, they are simply part of the game state that must be checked when initiating/resolving the ability.

 

That argument doesn't change the outcome, though. The "stealth" of the defending character does not interact with the attacking character in any way. In that regard, the attacking character cannot be "immune" to the stealth of the defending character any more than it can be immune to a character ability that gives the character +1 STR or something similar. Since the attacking character cannot be immune to the "stealth" of the defending character, the a defending character with stealth remains an illegal target when resolving the attacking character's stealth ability.

 

It might be easier to see in this example: I use my Syrio on one of my other characters (Character X), giving it the MIL icon and stealth. You attack with your stealthy, Dragonglass Dagger character. Can your attacker bypass Character X because it is immune to Syrio? No, because Syrio is not resolving on your attacker; he is resolving on my defender. With no interaction between Syrio and your attacker, your attacker's immunity does not play a part. There really is no practical difference between this and Character X receiving stealth directly from its own (printed or gained) stealth ability.

Go to the full post »


  • Please log in to reply
4 replies to this topic

#1
mplain

mplain

    Advanced Member

  • Contributor
  • PipPipPip
  • 1442 posts
Dragonglass Dagger
 
While attached character is participating in a challenge, it gets +2 STR and is immune to opponent's character abilities.
 
Can a character with stealth and Dragonglass Dagger bypass an opponent's character with stealth?
 
* * * * *
 
 
Stealth is a keyword ability. When a player initiates a challenge, for each character with stealth he or she declares as an attacker, that player may choose one character without stealth controlled by the defending player. Each chosen character is considered bypassed by stealth, and cannot be declared as a defender for that challenge.

 

 
If a card is immune to a specified set of effects (for example, "immune to event card effects," or "immune to [tyrell] card effects"), it cannot be targeted or affected by effects that belong to that set. Only the card itself is protected, and peripheral entities associated with an immune card (such as attachments, tokens, abilities originating from an immune card, or duplicates) are not themselves immune.
 

On one hand, a character with stealth can only bypass a character without stealth.

 

On the other hand, a character with Dragonstone Dagger is immune to an opponent's character's stealth keyword, i.e. cannot be affected by it.

 

I'm not sure if "cannot be affected" translates into "can ignore".

 

I think this boils down to the last sentence of the quoted paragraph under Immune: the character with Dragonglass Dagger is immune to character abilities, but his own Stealth keyword ability is not immune to the opponent's stealth. Is that right?



#2
istaril

istaril

    Advanced Member

  • Contributor
  • PipPipPip
  • 1741 posts

Yup. You still can't stealth a character with stealth - the immune character isn't being affected by the stealth at all, so the immunity doesn't interact with it. The immune character's ability IS affected by the opposing stealth, but that's the scope of immunity; it doesn't extend beyond the card itself. This is basically the same reason you can cancel a Pleasure Barge with a Treachery.



#3
ktom

ktom

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1463 posts
✓  Best Answer

The immune character's ability IS affected by the opposing stealth

 

I disagree with this statement. 

 

When resolving the attacking character's stealth ability, the stealth ability on the defending character is not actively resolving on anything. As such, it cannot be said to be interacting with anything in that moment, either. Even if it were, the only thing the defending character's stealth could be interacting with is the defending character itself - giving it the status of "with stealth" for the purpose of resolving the attacking character's stealth.

 

Effectively, the "...without stealth controlled by the defending player..." text of the stealth definition is a targeting requirement. The characteristics of the potential targets (in this case, whether or not they have a viable instance of the "stealth" keyword) do not "interact" with the resolving ability. Rather, they are simply part of the game state that must be checked when initiating/resolving the ability.

 

That argument doesn't change the outcome, though. The "stealth" of the defending character does not interact with the attacking character in any way. In that regard, the attacking character cannot be "immune" to the stealth of the defending character any more than it can be immune to a character ability that gives the character +1 STR or something similar. Since the attacking character cannot be immune to the "stealth" of the defending character, the a defending character with stealth remains an illegal target when resolving the attacking character's stealth ability.

 

It might be easier to see in this example: I use my Syrio on one of my other characters (Character X), giving it the MIL icon and stealth. You attack with your stealthy, Dragonglass Dagger character. Can your attacker bypass Character X because it is immune to Syrio? No, because Syrio is not resolving on your attacker; he is resolving on my defender. With no interaction between Syrio and your attacker, your attacker's immunity does not play a part. There really is no practical difference between this and Character X receiving stealth directly from its own (printed or gained) stealth ability.



#4
mplain

mplain

    Advanced Member

  • Contributor
  • PipPipPip
  • 1442 posts

Effectively, the "...without stealth controlled by the defending player..." text of the stealth definition is a targeting requirement.


When you put it that way, it becomes easier to understand. Thank you.



#5
istaril

istaril

    Advanced Member

  • Contributor
  • PipPipPip
  • 1741 posts

When resolving the attacking character's stealth ability, the stealth ability on the defending character is not actively resolving on anything. As such, it cannot be said to be interacting with anything in that moment, either. Even if it were, the only thing the defending character's stealth could be interacting with is the defending character itself - giving it the status of "with stealth" for the purpose of resolving the attacking character's stealth.

 

Yeah, I see what you mean. I don't think we're disagreeing, as if I reword my statement to be more accurate, 'the fact that the defending  has stealth affects the target selection of the ability" - but my initial wording glossed over a fair bit of that.