Losing all abilities - clear definition please :)

[Brettlanpher]

I don’t want to beat a dead horse, but we have a lot of tournaments in Indy and I would like a clean answer to pass along. If a unit loses all abilities by way of a card, rains of castamere, etc; we have already determined that they lose all abilities for the round including any abilities that could be gained throughout that round. I would like to know if the. Abilities that can’t be gained are limited to sunder, crits, vicious. Specific example... if I play the rains of castamere on “x” unit and they want to influence with Rodrik to gain critical blows; they couldn’t gain them. What about something like “tactical approach” that allows you to spend tokens and cause wounds? Do we call that an ability or is it safe? Me shinall has ruled that unless an attachment is specifically called out; it isn’t affected. This would pertain to a card like “surrounded and exposed”. I’m sorry if my question isn’t clear enough but I would like to get a solid answer. Thanks again.

[Brettlanpher]

I’ve attached the references I have to the thread.

[Alliser Thorne]

Rodrik is turned off because his card specifically says he is granting an Ability to the unit- it's literally on his card- Would be Lost.

Another example: Rattleshirt's cards also specifically state the unit is gaining an Ability- Would be Lost.

Tactical Approach, much like Vows, do not have that wording- they do not say the unit is gaining an Ability or such wording. Vows have been ruled to not be lost, I would rule the same with Tactical Approach.

It would appear you're looking for some "blanket answer" to cover all bases, when you need to read each specific effect- they are all different and the wording matters for each.

[Brettlanpher]

Thanks brother. I appreciate that.

[Brettlanpher]

Rodrik is turned off because his card specifically says he is granting an Ability to the unit- it's literally on his card- Would be Lost.

Another example: Rattleshirt's cards also specifically state the unit is gaining an Ability- Would be Lost.

Tactical Approach, much like Vows, do not have that wording- they do not say the unit is gaining an Ability or such wording. Vows have been ruled to not be lost, I would rule the same with Tactical Approach.

It would appear you're looking for some "blanket answer" to cover all bases, when you need to read each specific effect- they are all different and the wording matters for each.

Now to add another layer to the question. It has been ruled that an attachment is not affected unless specifically called out. If a unit is stripped of all abilities and cannot gain any abilities; this will often cancel the effects of an attachment? For example, if Jaime the Kingslayer has his unit lose all abilities; they would not be able to benefit from his counterattack, correct? He would still be able to provide the +1 to defensive saves as this is not a “unit ability”. In essence; I think it’s definitely a case by case situation and the rules of the attachment would have to be evaluated?

[TheRedGod]

I dont think thats how it works... An attachment would need to GIVE the unit an ability, such as sundering for it to be canceled. The attachments abilities like counterattack still work. Not 100 percent sure though.

[Alliser Thorne]

Now to add another layer to the question. It has been ruled that an attachment is not affected unless specifically called out. If a unit is stripped of all abilities and cannot gain any abilities; this will often cancel the effects of an attachment? For example, if Jaime the Kingslayer has his unit lose all abilities; they would not be able to benefit from his counterattack, correct? He would still be able to provide the +1 to defensive saves as this is not a “unit ability”. In essence; I think it’s definitely a case by case situation and the rules of the attachment would have to be evaluated?

Again, as I stated before, it depends on the Ability of the attachment. As I quoted, some Attachments specifically, in their text, state they are granting an Ability to the unit, such as Rattleshirt. Unless it says this, the unit isn't gaining any Abilities, and they cannot be taken away.

Also, as stated, there isn't a blanket answer- you need to read each effect.

[Dartagnnon]

Let me see if I follow this Logic train!
a card that says give a unit Sundering or the unit gains sundering isn’t gaining an ability unless it says the unit gains the ability: sundering? Is that correct?

[Alliser Thorne]

Let me see if I follow this Logic train!
a card that says give a unit Sundering or the unit gains sundering isn’t gaining an ability unless it says the unit gains the ability: sundering? Is that correct?

No, that would be exactly the situation where they would lose the Ability, when it's literally written on the card the unit is gaining the Ability.

What wouldn't be lost would be, for example, Catelyn's Influence, which makes them attack with their highest attack die. That is not an Ability on the unit, nor is saying they are gaining an Ability.

Again, read the specific card.

[crimeanmech]

No, that would be exactly the situation where they would lose the Ability, when it's literally written on the card the unit is gaining the Ability.

What wouldn't be lost would be, for example, Catelyn's Influence, which makes them attack with their highest attack die. That is not an Ability on the unit, nor is saying they are gaining an Ability.

Again, read the specific card.

Othell’s commander cards state the ‘attack’ gains Critical Blows, Sundering, Vicious without referencing the ‘unit’s attacks gain’ like Rodrik does.... so RAW the abilities from Othell’s cards are not taken away by Rains, Lannister Intimidation, Calculated Cruelty? Attacks inherently originate from a unit so I could also see how it could be interpreted they’re taken away.

[crimeanmech]

Alliser, why haven't you replied to this one again?

[Alliser Thorne]

Alliser, why haven't you replied to this one again?

You seem to be under some impression it's my job to be at your beck and call?

This has been addressed before, and answered specifically about attacks. Try searching next time before posting the same question.

Attacks are part of the unit, they can't exist in a "limbo" outside of that, they have to originate from a unit, specifically. Abilities can come from Combat Units, Attachments, NCUs, and other cards as well; Attacks can't, they always originate from a Combat Unit.

So yes, those would be lost.

[crimeanmech]

You seem to be under some impression it's my job to be at your beck and call?

This has been addressed before, and answered specifically about attacks. Try searching next time before posting the same question.

Attacks are part of the unit, they can't exist in a "limbo" outside of that, they have to originate from a unit, specifically. Abilities can come from Combat Units, Attachments, NCUs, and other cards as well; Attacks can't, they always originate from a Combat Unit.

So yes, those would be lost.

For someone who spends as much time on replying on the internet, I'd think you'd have a little more common sense about what a means. It means I'm being light hearted and joking while you continue to be crass. Is it possible for you to discuss things without taking them personally as attacks when others are trying to gain more clarity on the rules? That's all most of us are trying to do here. While I appreciate your insight, I do not appreciate your attitude.

I also want to preface this as saying I actually agree with you most of the time. Some of the posts I put on here are are due to others disagreeing with me, which is why I post them. Ultimately this shouldn't really matter what side of the fence I fall on but I wanted to clarify since you always seem to think everything is black and white.

If you want to get into the semantics of things though, let's evaluate what you said earlier and see how it's in direct conflict with what I just asked re: Othell. You stated the following, 'As I quoted, some Attachments specifically, in their text, state they are granting an Ability to the unit, such as Rattleshirt. Unless it says this, the unit isn't gaining any Abilities, and they cannot be taken away.''

​I'm with you on this. It makes sense. Rodrik's influence card uses similar verbiage, "While influencing a unit, that unit's Melee attacks gain Critical Blows. Now let's look carefully at Othell's cards. They do NOT say, 'Attach this card to that friendly combat unit. While attached, they gain the following ability.'

They say 'this attack gains Critical Blow and may re-roll any attack dice.' Using your logic and words, "unless it says this the unit isn't gaining any abilities, and they cannot be taken away.' Well, guess what? This card and his others DO NOT SAY the unit gains abilities. They only reference the attack. They DO NOT SAY the same thing. So either your initial claim was wrong or you're not interpreting these RAW. At the very minimum, you're having to infer that the attacks originate from the unit and thus are shut off because they DO NOT SAY the abilities are being given to the unit. They very specifically reference 'THIS ATTACK'. So with all that said, I'd love to hear your thoughts on this...

[CMON Michael Shinall]

As has been discussed above, there is no blanket answer. Cards all do different things, they all remove different things.

One point I will clarify though is that if something is granting an Ability/effect to an Attack, that Attack is still coming from the unit, and if they have lost Abilities, that will be lost as well.

Otherwise, you'll need to read each specific card to see what it removes.