Ability technicalities

[ShrapnelFox]

Hi Gondorian (and friends)

I know I've been around a while, yet I still get baffled by some of the rulings of Shadow Era logic.
Could we define in the FAQ under it's own heading what abilities are cancelled when a card leaves play:
http://www.shadowera.com/showthread....100#post585100


To my understanding when a card leaves play (ally, item, ability{support}) the ability is cancelled - exception if its a 'negative ability' or a permanent stat change.

So the following will stay in play even when the card is removed:
> A stat change is defined by the terms gains and loses: I.e. Target ally gains +2 health
> A negative ability is often bolded and defined by the term is. I.e. Target is poisoned


So focusing on the "exception" of negative abilities still being in play when the card initiating the ability is removed. Does this therefore mean:

1. Venomflame Archer ^^^activated ability will still work even after he's been removed from play. I.e. The targeted ally remains poisoned.
1SE: Target opposing ally is poisoned and set ablaze.

2. Kiruth Devotee ^^^activated ability will still work even after he's been removed from play. I.e. Targeted ally will swap to the other players side as an undead.
Meek (this ally can't attack heroes). 3: When target other ally is killed, it is returned to play under your control with no abilities and Undead alignment.


Also I recently learn that Sword Thief's ability is regarded as a "negative ability"

Gondorian, why is Sword Thief's ability regarded as a negative ability rather then a Passive Ability?
When Sword Thief is summoned, target opposing ally can't attack or defend until the end of its controller's next turn.

If it was a negative ability, shouldn't it contain the term is and therefore read?:
When Sword Thief is summoned, target opposing is unable to attack or defend until the end of its controller's next turn.

"is" being the term to define a "negative ability" as per the FAQ


Apologies if I've muddled something up in the Shadow Era logic

[Veles]

Until Gondo comes and goes into details...

You are naming things wrongly. There is no category called negative abilities. Poisoned, ablaze, disabled, frozen, cant attack and cant defend are negative effects and completely different from passive abilities. Those and only those are negative effects. You can even say they are completely different from any ability and they form a separate status category.

Negative effect can be granted to a card using abilities. More on what kinds of abilities there are in SE read here: http://www.shadowera.com/showthread....cluding-FAQ%29 Some examples...

Using cards active ability like poisoned/ablaze from Venomflame Archer, cant attack from Jasmine, cant defend from Medusil, ablaze from Wrath of Summer, poisoned and disabled from Skervox.
Using passive abilities like: disabled from Layarian Seductress, cant attack and cant defend from Sword Thief, self inflicted ablaze from Phoenix Urigon, frozen from Voice of Winter, Snow Sephire and Frosted Urigon.
From immediate abilities like Poison Gas, Garths Concoction, Engulfing Flames, Flaming Arrow, Poisoned Arrow, Freezing Grip.
From attachments like Captured Pray.

These are not to be confused with stuff that are instinctively considered as something negative to the player like damage from Brutal Minotaur which are passive abilities. As I said only the group of effects mentioned above are defined and named as negative effects. Everything else falls into some other category.

In your examples:

Sword thief has a passive ability that works on summon and gives an ally a negative effect.
Devotees ability is active ability and even though the wording mimics the wording negative effects have it is not defined as part of the negative effects group and it behaves like other active abilities. As far as I know if you control Devotee and he is killed before marked ally is killed, that ally wont go to your side as source of the ability is no longer in play. If it behaves differently it is a bug.

[Gondorian]

Great reply, Veles. If something still doesn't make sense after reading that, ShrapnelFox, I'll handle the scraps.

[trevorJacobs]

Ah ha! I think i get this now.

Negative Effects (some of which are key-words, some not) and Permanent Stat Changes (base attack, health, duration, SE) are enduring, regardless of the source.

All other effects require the source to be in play to sustain them.

Exception: attachments are a bit of a mix, but it says so on the card - Captured Prey says it causes Disabled *while attached*; Embers of the Just causes Ablaze whatever happens to it

Another give-away is *has* vs. *gains* - the former requires a source, whilst the latter does not (so killing Unaxio Bannerban / Midnight Sentinel / Kyrgon would have no effect on ally who gained haste / ambush / +1 base attack; removing Silent Strike / Surprise Attack / Aldon will affect allies who have haste / ambush / +1 attack)

I still don't know what happens when Groundshift meets an ally with an attachment that grants a keyword passive (e.g. Will to Fight, Surprise Attack, Silent Strike) ... both provide an ongoing effect

[trevorJacobs]

Note: there is a difference between:
- having +X attack and gaining +X base attack
- having +X health and gaining +X health
- having -X health and reduced by X health
- having +X durability and gaining +X durability
- having ambush/stealth/haste and gaining ambush/stealth/haste

All of the 'haves' need sustaining - if you remove the source, the effect goes

All of the 'gains' stay, whatever happens to the source

Negative Effects (regardless of wording) behave like the second group

[Gondorian]

I still don't know what happens when Groundshift meets an ally with an attachment that grants a keyword passive (e.g. Will to Fight, Surprise Attack, Silent Strike) ... both provide an ongoing effect

Since you treat the granted passive as if written on the ally (Ability Basics), then you Kristoffer Wyld with Haste explicitly written on him and any ally with Will to Fight (treated as if Haste is written on it while the attachment is on there) will behave the same against Groundshift.

[Ross013]

I vaguely remember a discussion about groundshift working different to something like Layarian diplomat, where groundshift would indeed work against an attachment, but diplomat wouldn't?

Not trying to cause confusion but what would be the difference there?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[trevorJacobs]

got it

I think the confusion is the interlocking definitions of keywords, passive abilities, negative effects, and sourced/unsourced effects...

It is the last of these that is important. Whether a thing is a keyword / passive ability / negative effect is less important than whether it is sourced/unsourced. The Rulebook could be clearer in this regard.

[trevorJacobs]

I vaguely remember a discussion about groundshift working different to something like Layarian diplomat, where groundshift would indeed work against an attachment, but diplomat wouldn't?

Not trying to cause confusion but what would be the difference there?

Oh gosh. I remember that somewhere as well ... hope it's not true:

Layarian Diplomat: When Layarian Diplomat is summoned, target opposing ally loses all passive abilities until the start of your next turn.
Groundshift: Duration 1. Sustain 1HP. When Groundshift is summoned, the active location is exiled. Opposing allies lose all passive abilities.
Morbid Acolyte: 2: Target opposing ally loses all passive abilities until the start of your next turn.

They all say 'opposing ally/ies lose(s) all passive abilities' so i would expect these to work in the same way ...

[trevorJacobs]

Could be this thread where the question was raised whether Layarian Diplomat would cancel damage reduction caused by an attachment (e.g. Ellos' Resolve)

http://www.shadowera.com/showthread....arian+diplomat

This is a bit different though - as damage reduction is not a keyword, it is not treated as if written on the ally, and is thus not cancelled by Layarian Diplomat OR by Groundshift. Is that right Gondorian?