12 replies to this topic

[mplain]

Barring the Gates
 
Card abilities cannot cause characters to enter play.

 
While Barring the Gates is revealed, can card abilities (e.g. new Marge) bring duplicates into play?
 
I know Marshaling Orders prevents you from marshaling duplicates of attachments and locations, because you cannot initiate the marshaling action in the first place. Same with duping the Arbor.

 

However, the wording on Barring the Gates is kinda ambiguous. First, it does not directly prevent you from performing any game actions. Second, it refers specifically to characters entering play, not being put into play (which I think might be a bit different, like "means vs. ends"). Maybe the plot doesn't prevent players from performing certain game actions, but rather prevents abilities from resolving in a certain way.
 
As a very specific example, if I have a Night's Watch attachment or location in hand, can I trigger Old Bear Mormont to put his dupe into play? Whether you announce the card that you're going to put into play in Step 1 or Step 6 might be important here (I'm thinking of Scavenge in Netrunner).

[wordsmith]

As Barring the Gates is referring only to a "character" card type, I think it boils down to a definition of a "Character" card. Is a Duplicate considered to be a "Character"?

Based on the text in RR I would say that Duplicate is duplicate and Character is character:

..Marshaling a duplicate is not considered marshaling a card of the duplicate’s printed type. It is only considered “marshaling a duplicate card.”..

 

So Barring the Gates would not prevent duplicates from entering the play.

[mplain]

The problem as I see it is twofold:

 

1) Does Barring the Gates prevent players from triggering abilities that would put a character into play as their only effect?

 

2) If not -- and also for abilities that can be triggered regardless (e.g. INBAMF), -- does the plot block the resolution of any effects that would attempt to put a character into play? Or does it only prevent those effects from resolving in such a manner that would actually result in a character entering play?

[wordsmith]

Just thinking about the logic of this Plot I would assume that it prevents any ability (if the whole ability is attempting to put a character into play) or any part of the ability that puts a character into play. Plot text doesn't specify that it prevents the whole ability, just the part of the ability which mentions putting a character into play.

 

So in case of INBAMF, as far as I understand it - it can be played, player can look at the bottom of his deck and re-order those 5 cards. The part with "may put a character into play" is just prevented=ignored. It would change the game state so it could be initiated but no characters will enter play from it. Would you resolve it differently?

[mplain]

You can play INBAMF while Barring the Gates is revealed, there is no doubt about that. Revealing the bottom 5 cards of your deck is enough of a game state change. I am wondering if the "may put a character into play" part is indeed prevented from resolving. Technically, I could see it being interpreted in such a way that if "putting a character into play" doesn't actually "cause a character to enter play", then it could be okay to put a duplicate into play.

[wordsmith]

Ok I see where you come from. I wasn't looking at the "Barring..." ability as "prevent of putting a character into play". I just interpret the ability as it is: "Card abilities cannot cause characters to enter play." So in example of new Margaery, I would interpret her ability through that optics. Meaning, some Lord/King was killed, I trigger Margaery (no text on Barring is forbidding that). Then I search for another Lord/King and put it in play as a duplicate - no part of "Card abilities cannot cause characters to enter play" was breached as I didn't put any character into play.

 

I understand that from other point of view Barring could be seen as a restriction of any ability which states: "search your deck for a XYZZY character and put it into play.". However in such case the text on Barring would be written in a different way, f.e.: "No player can trigger any card abilities which cause characters to enter play." As it's not written in that way, I assume we can trigger any abilities which would change the game state and at the same time won't put any characters into play.

[mplain]

It's not so much about whether a player can trigger abilities, it's more about whether effects that put characters into play are prevented from resolving altogether. If they are, then Margaery's ability has no potential to change the game state, and consequentially cannot be triggered. But if those effects are only prevented from resolving in a certain manner (that would cause a character, not a duplicate, to enter play), then there is potential to change the game state, and consequently Marge's ability can be triggered.

 

Your suggested wording of "players cannot trigger card abilities which cause characters to enter play" is ambiguous in whether it prevents INBAMF and core Old Bear Mormont.

[wordsmith]

I understand, and on the example of how the text would look different I tried to explain the point that Barring is worded exactly in such way that it doesn't prevent triggering such effects. That it only forbids the resolve of an effect that put a character into play.

As I see it this new plot would need to be addressed in the official FAQ. Good that you brought that up, I thought it was clear when I first read its ability. And it's not that clear. I would resolve it as I wrote, however my logic is fuzzy on it. I just inclined to one side of argument which seemed to me more correct. Not denying that there could be other side which could be correct.

 

That example was just a snapshot only to present a different point of view.

[mplain]

The main argument for it blocking any "put a character into play" effects is that the game might not know that such an effect can do something other than "cause a character to enter play". Characters entering play as duplicates are an exception, something akin to a replacement effect. The game doesn't differentiate between "marshal a location" and "marshal a duplicate on a location" in terms of permission (e.g. Marshaling Orders, Arbor). The wording on Barring the Gates might just be a rephrasing of "Card abilities cannot put characters into play" without any functional difference.

 

Anyway, I asked Daniel, waiting for an official reply now.

[VonWibble]

Ignore

[mplain]

Best Answer

Got word from Daniel Schaefer:
 

While the plot Barring the Gates is revealed, can a player use an ability to put a duplicate into play?
I am wondering about the specific wording. If the plot said "players cannot put characters into play" then it would be clear that any effects that put characters into play would be prevented from resolving. But the current wording "cannot cause characters to enter play" can be interpreted as not applying to effects that would put duplicates into play.

No, a player cannot use a card ability to put a duplicate into play while Barring the Gates is revealed. The ability on Barring the Gates prevents any aspect of an ability that would attempt to put a character card into play, regardless of whether that card would enter play as a duplicate.

[wordsmith]

As to better understand the rules, can you explain the exact wording, where is the border on which ability Barring the Gates will prevent and which won't?

Is it because Marge/Old Bear have an ability written in a way: "Ability: xyz..., put a character into play."?

While Night Gathers just allows normal marshaling - which itself is not a card ability which puts a character into play?

 

Also, just to be sure, does Barring prevent all plots which put characters into play, right? ...White Shadows, Called into Service, Ghosts of Harrenal, Here to Serve, Summoned to Court, A Time for Wolves

[mplain]

The resolution of Night Gathers' ability does not result in putting a character into play. See more here.

 

Card effects (and costs, as is the case with Podrick Payne) that would put a character into play are prevented from resolving. If a complex effect has several aspects, of which one would put a character into play, only that specific aspect is prevented from resolving.