Jump to content



Photo

Faq 5.0 page 10


  • Please log in to reply
46 replies to this topic

#21 orion_kurnous

orion_kurnous

    Member

  • Members
  • 139 posts

Posted 22 April 2014 - 11:52 AM

Then, in the case of Valyrian Steel, if i kneel my maester to draw 2 cards but i can only draw one for my cap limit, then for the new faq i cant trigger the chain?



#22 ktom

ktom

    Member

  • Members
  • 7,558 posts

Posted 22 April 2014 - 11:59 AM

Then, in the case of Valyrian Steel, if i kneel my maester to draw 2 cards but i can only draw one for my cap limit, then for the new faq i cant trigger the chain?

 

That is incorrect. You would be allowed to to trigger it to draw the 1 card, though not the 2 because of the cap.

 

Drawing 1 card before reaching cap would be considered a partially successful resolution of the effect, therefore meeting the requiremetns of the new FAQ entry.

 

On the other hand, the new FAQ entry prevents you from using Valyrian Steel link if you are already at draw cap and just want to kneel the Maester to spark off all the rest of his Response chains.



#23 Bomb

Bomb

    Cool Person Club

  • Members
  • 1,762 posts

Posted 22 April 2014 - 12:10 PM

I know I don't have to do this but I will quote part of the new FAQ entry on this subject:
 

 

"In order to trigger an effect, the possibility that at least some independent aspect of the effect (as opposed to the cost) is able to resolve must exist. If, given the current game state, it is impossible (aside from cancels) for at least one aspect of the effect to resolve, the effect cannot be triggered."

 

To me, this means that there must be at least one character must have an INT icon, is standing, and can be knelt.  This would make at least one part of Game of Cyvasse is possible to resolve.  Because the possibility exists, the event should be possible to be played.  The "if able" basically makes it so the choices made by players CAN fail, and move on to the "then" portion of the effect.

 

Please tell me if this is brutally incorrect or not.

 

EDIT: Added more to the above quote as it is just as relevant to the discussion and don't want to look like I'm purposely quoting it out of context.


Edited by Bomb, 22 April 2014 - 12:29 PM.


#24 ktom

ktom

    Member

  • Members
  • 7,558 posts

Posted 22 April 2014 - 12:30 PM

Not brutally incorrect, but I don't think it has to go deeper than that.

 

Let's say, for Distraction, I have a standing MIL character and a kneeling one. The "possibility" that at least some independent aspect of the effect is able to resolve exists, right? So can I choose the kneeling one as the actual target when I trigger the event? I'd say no. The FAQ entry becomes meaningless if I can get past the "possibility" requirement by having a standing character to choose, but then avoid its impact completely by choosing a kneeling character.

 

That's what I think has to be taken into account when looking at Cyvasse. There has to be at least one standing character with the INT icon that can be chosen as a target in order to get past the "possibility" check. But more than that, a standing character with the INT icon must be chosen as a target, or else the FAQ entry means nothing. The only way the person playing the event can be sure such a character is chosen is to choose it themselves - which means they have to control it.



#25 Bomb

Bomb

    Cool Person Club

  • Members
  • 1,762 posts

Posted 22 April 2014 - 01:30 PM

When you have multiple players making targeting choices, the opponents add a possibility of successful resolution that is independent of your control.  The event does not always fail if you do not select a standing character with an INT icon unless it is impossible for an opponent to choose a target.

 

I agree with your counterargument with Distraction, but Distraction only depends on that player of the event to choose legal targets.  You are the only one who can make a legal choice and allow the effect to successfully resolve. 

 

I think that the only time you cannot trigger an effect is if the effect will always fail to resolve.  Distraction will always fail to resolve if you choose a kneeling MIL icon character.  Game of Cyvasse doesn't always fail to resolve if you do not choose a standing INT character unless the opponent does not have an eligible target.  The opponent's choice becomes that additional possibility for the event to resolve successfully.

 

The FAQ entry does not say that you cannot trigger an effect that could fail to resolve.  It says you cannot trigger an effect that is impossible to resolve. 

 

For Game of Cyvasse, it is always possible to resolve it as long as the opponent has a standing INT character.  Without them having a standing INT character, you will always have to kneel a standing INT character because without doing so the effect will be impossible to resolve.

 

I think I'm at the point where I might have to ask FFG if I want to get the full understanding of how the new FAQ entry works with effects like this.  Just need to figure out how to word such a question...



#26 ktom

ktom

    Member

  • Members
  • 7,558 posts

Posted 22 April 2014 - 02:21 PM

So here's the question I would ask you: We agree that with Distraction, there has to be a target available for successful resolution and it must be chosen. So, if I have no characters with an INT icon and you have both standing and kneeling characters with an INT icon, do you have to choose a standing one for successful resolution - like in the Distraction scenario? That is, can the fact that I played the event force you to choose the standing character because of the need for successful resolution where possible? And if that's the case, since I choose my target first, if I choose a target that cannot kneel successfully, are you required to if you have one?

 

I think we're at the same point, but coming up with different solutions.

 

My interpretation is that the person triggering the event is required to choose targets in support of a successful resolution (applying the same reasoning for Cyvasse that I would for Distraction) in order to trigger the effect in the first place. I say the FAQ entry requires the person triggering the effect to both have a path to successful resolution and to take it. If the path requires someone else to do something, they don't really have a path because you cannot force another player to take a particular option when they are given a choice. 

 

Your interpretation is that the person triggering the event is not required to choose targets in support of successful resolution provided that there is some possibility that a target could be chosen by someone in support of successful resolution. So long as they have a path to successful resolution, they aren't required to take it. To me, that says I can either choose a kneeling character for Distraction, so long as there is a standing one, or that in some situations, other players are required to support my interests instead of their own.

 

Hope that helps clarify what I think some of the issues are for your email to FFG.



#27 Bomb

Bomb

    Cool Person Club

  • Members
  • 1,762 posts

Posted 22 April 2014 - 04:09 PM

Your interpretation is that the person triggering the event is not required to choose targets in support of successful resolution provided that there is some possibility that a target could be chosen by someone in support of successful resolution. So long as they have a path to successful resolution, they aren't required to take it. To me, that says I can either choose a kneeling character for Distraction, so long as there is a standing one, or that in some situations, other players are required to support my interests instead of their own.

 

Hope that helps clarify what I think some of the issues are for your email to FFG.

 

Note:  I understand that the new FAQ entry is about at least part of the effect resolving successfully.  Just want to make that clear based on some of my comments below.

 

We've gone back and forth a bit already, but I just want to make it clear that I do not agree with your interpretation of Distraction based on my interpretation of the FAQ entry.  There is only one player choosing a target and that is the player of that event.  There is nothing else influencing the possibility of the effect successfully resolving like there is with Game of Cyvasse with the other opponent's that are choosing targets.  In my opinion, the FAQ entry is not adding a new targeting play restriction.  It's asking you to see if, based on the chosen targets or game state, there is the possibility of the effect successfully resolving(at least partially).

 

This is not the same thing as having eligible targets.  An eligible target is a character with an INT icon.  Once we have eligible targets, you check to see if the effect has a chance to resolve successfully.  The problem at this point is that you have no way to know that an opponent is going to choose a character that the effect can be successfully applied to in step f.  Therefore, there is still the possibility for the effect to successfully resolve.

 

Since it's impossible to trigger the effect after the opponent chooses their targets, they become that unknown variable that allows the effect the possibility of successfully resolving.  In Distraction, there is nothing like that because the target you choose must then be checked for the possibility of successfully resolving the effect.  In this case it is the ability to kneel.  In Janos Slynt's case, there isn't a target, so you are checking for a different effect being possible to resolve.

 

So, in summary, the new play restriction isn't necessarily an added eligible target play restriction.  It's a blanket "is it possible that the effect can at least partially resolve successfully".  This is why I think that you aren't forced to choose anything more than an INT character to trigger this effect as long as the opponent has a character that is available to being chosen and knelt for this effect, you are not bound to force the effect resolve successfully.  "if able" doesn't mean you must force the event to successfully resolve by your own choices just in case the opponent does not.

 

Hopefully I will hear back from FFG on this because it would help set a precedent on effects like these, considering this is one of our more complicated events.  I will post the question and answer once I receive them as I didn't grab a copy of my wall of text that I sent to them.


Edited by Bomb, 22 April 2014 - 04:10 PM.


#28 Slothgodfather

Slothgodfather

    Member

  • Members
  • 361 posts

Posted 24 April 2014 - 01:34 PM

To be honest, I didn't read all of these walls of text but I did skim through and it seems what started this longer debate with Cyvasse has a slightly wrong context.   Playing Cyvasse is the only cost of the event.  After the card is played, all players choose a character they control with an INT icon. Kneel that character.  Then their STR's are checked to see who won the game.

 

So eligible targets isn't really part of playing the card.  Your opponent doesn't need to have any INT icons at all to play the event.  The event is played, characters with INT icons are chosen if able.  Since this isn't part of the initiation it is part of the effect, which can be successful provided at least 1 character on the board has an INT icon.

 

The chosen characters are knelt.  The successfully knelt characters check their STR to see who wins the last effect of the event.

 

To me, the only thing the new FAQ entry did was say you have to have an INT icon available on the board before you can play the event.   



#29 Bomb

Bomb

    Cool Person Club

  • Members
  • 1,762 posts

Posted 24 April 2014 - 03:45 PM

All it takes is SlothGodFather to come in here to chime in.  I think I actually agree with you.  The event effect itself is having each player attempt to kneel an INT character.  The only play restriction really is that it has to be the Challenges phase.  Otherwise, would one be unable to trigger Westeros Bleeds if no characters could be discarded?

 

Finally I wrote a short and simple post.


  • Slothgodfather likes this

#30 Slothgodfather

Slothgodfather

    Member

  • Members
  • 361 posts

Posted 24 April 2014 - 04:11 PM

The same could be asked about Lethal Counter attack.   What if Power of Blood is revealed and your opponent only attacks with a noble character.   Lets also say that Valar Doharis is revealed, so we have a reason for wanting to kneel characters anyways.  

 

If I can't kill any of the attackers, can I still use Lethal Counter Attack?

 

Before this FAQ entry people were legitimately trying to break things.  Always trying to find some way to go beyond the intention of what a card effect is for.   Standing Osha as a cost for an effect that can't resolve, etc.   While the rules are screwball sometimes, I really hate the hand holding that FFG has to do to try to get us to "play by the rules".  and by that I guess I mean to obvious intent of the cards.

 

But, as a community, I guess most do want the rules all ironed out in the most explicit fashion possible.  The trouble there is when they try to fix the issue of players actively trying to break things, they unintentionally break things themselves.

 

So now we know we can't trigger an effect that doesn't at least have some partial resolution - so only stand Osha when she is in a challenge.  But because that somehow wasn't clear enough to begin with, they had to make this rule.  We simply traded one problem for another.


Edited by Slothgodfather, 24 April 2014 - 04:12 PM.


#31 ktom

ktom

    Member

  • Members
  • 7,558 posts

Posted 24 April 2014 - 04:30 PM

 Otherwise, would one be unable to trigger Westeros Bleeds if no characters could be discarded?

 

Yes. If there are no characters in play that can be discarded, you cannot play Westeros Bleeds just to get the card out of your hand or to kneel 4 influence. There is no possibility that anything will happen when the event resolves, so you cannot trigger it - according to the FAQ 5.0.

 

The same could be asked about Lethal Counter attack.   What if Power of Blood is revealed and your opponent only attacks with a noble character.  

 

Again, no. According to FAQ 5.0, there is no possibility that anything will happen when the event resolves, so you cannot trigger it.

 

Lets also say that Valar Doharis is revealed, so we have a reason for wanting to kneel characters anyways.  

 

You have a reason to want the characters knelt for cost, but having a reason to want them knelt is not the same as there being a possibility of successful resolution. I certainly have a reason for wanting Janos to be standing - but I still can't trigger him if I'm at draw cap and there is thus no possibility for me to draw a card, right?

 

While the rules are screwball sometimes, I really hate the hand holding that FFG has to do to try to get us to "play by the rules".  and by that I guess I mean to obvious intent of the cards.

 

Amen.

 

So now we know we can't trigger an effect that doesn't at least have some partial resolution - so only stand Osha when she is in a challenge.  But because that somehow wasn't clear enough to begin with, they had to make this rule.  We simply traded one problem for another.

 

The problem here is more one of targeting that whether or not the new rule is clear enough. And it all builds on the fact that people try to find loopholes. The thing is, this is a pretty big loophole.

 

The Distraction example is the clearest way I know how to say it. If all the characters with MIL icons are the board are kneeling, there is no possibility of a successful resolution and I can't trigger it. Period. But if there is just one standing MIL icon I can trigger it - and choose a MIL icon that is already kneeling to get the same result that, anticipating it, didn't allow me to play the event.

 

 

When dealing with immunity and "cannot be...", the fact that an effect can't affect the card also means it is not a legal target for that effect. I don't see why that couldn't carry through with the FAQ 5.0 entry - although it doesn't say that, so I probably shouldn't assume it.



#32 -Istaril

-Istaril

    Member

  • Members
  • 781 posts

Posted 24 April 2014 - 04:52 PM

So (in other words) I can't play Westeros Bleeds if all characters in play are immune to events?

 

I've always actually been somewhat bothered by the distinction there (does it matter whether WB said "Discard Each" or "Discard All", specifically if you have an immune to events character in play?).


Edited by -Istaril, 24 April 2014 - 04:52 PM.


#33 ktom

ktom

    Member

  • Members
  • 7,558 posts

Posted 24 April 2014 - 04:56 PM

So (in other words) I can't play Westeros Bleeds if all characters in play are immune to events?

 

All characters are immune to events? Then no. But if even one is not, you're fine.

 

I've always actually been somewhat bothered by the distinction there (does it matter whether WB said "Discard Each" or "Discard All", specifically if you have an immune to events character in play?).

 

Does it bother you on Valar, too?

 

Since the effect doesn't target anything, there is no practical distinction between "discard each" and "discard all" because the "resolve as much as you can" rule kicks in and lets you discard fewer that "all." It's no different than being allowed to trigger a "draw 2" effect for 1 card when you have already drawn 2 of your 3 cards.



#34 Bomb

Bomb

    Cool Person Club

  • Members
  • 1,762 posts

Posted 25 April 2014 - 12:54 PM

FFG still has not gotten back to me about my Game of Cyvasse/"if able" rules clarity request that I submitted.  Maybe someone else would like to try?

 

I don't really like it either Alex.  Unfortunately, a blanket ruling had to be made just to keep stupid interactions from being possible.  Not sure how much this rule will be enforced when a player makes the attempt under the assumption the triggered effect will actually do something only to find out that the remaining characters that were out couldn't be discarded due to immunity or something.  This means that player can't mess up in that situation and waste an effect or card in doing so.



#35 mdc273

mdc273

    Member

  • Members
  • 975 posts

Posted 06 May 2014 - 10:52 AM

Honestly I think this is just a matter of poor sentence structure in light of a new ruling. Cyvasse is probably meant to be read like this now:

 

"Each player must choose a character they control with an Intrigue icon if able. Kneel those characters. Then..."

 

The 'if able' is probably in the wrong spot.

 

Subsequently, picking characters would be a part of the initiation of the effect (not the effect itself). If the initiation results in no effect happening, the initiation is rescinded. This meshes with the Distraction initiation as well. You have an invalid initiation that results in the initiation being rescinded.

 

I think this is actually a new question. If I initiate an effect with a dependency on another player for a possibility of successful resolution, what happens when the initiation results in no viable successful resolution?

 

Edit: If I were a TO and a Martell player attempted to play the card and no viable targets were selected I'd tell them to put the card back in their hand. That's the letter of the law at the moment. The initiation resulted in no possibility of the effect resolving and as such the card could not be played. It's a weird outlier where you're giving information away, but it's technically right.


Edited by mdc273, 06 May 2014 - 10:56 AM.


#36 Bomb

Bomb

    Cool Person Club

  • Members
  • 1,762 posts

Posted 06 May 2014 - 01:04 PM


Edit: If I were a TO and a Martell player attempted to play the card and no viable targets were selected I'd tell them to put the card back in their hand. That's the letter of the law at the moment. The initiation resulted in no possibility of the effect resolving and as such the card could not be played. It's a weird outlier where you're giving information away, but it's technically right.

 

I don't think you can do that.  The only way you can really do that is if there were NO viable targets available.  You can't start to initiate an effect and then "undo" it just because the opponent did not choose a target.

 

In fact, this is a big part of my debate with ktom.  An effect is allowed to not result in anything, but cannot initiate if you know for a fact that it will do nothing.

 

Also, FFG still hasn't gotten back to me on this subject.



#37 ktom

ktom

    Member

  • Members
  • 7,558 posts

Posted 06 May 2014 - 01:36 PM

 


Edit: If I were a TO and a Martell player attempted to play the card and no viable targets were selected I'd tell them to put the card back in their hand. That's the letter of the law at the moment. The initiation resulted in no possibility of the effect resolving and as such the card could not be played. It's a weird outlier where you're giving information away, but it's technically right.

 

I don't think you can do that.  The only way you can really do that is if there were NO viable targets available.  You can't start to initiate an effect and then "undo" it just because the opponent did not choose a target.

 

Yeah. You play the event only to find that you can't play the event? We usually see rulings to avoid that kind of paradox.

 

That said, a TO can rule any way he wants at his own tourney. You really shouldn't contradict the rules/cards completely, but in grey areas like this, the TO certainly has the prerogative. 

 

 

In fact, this is a big part of my debate with ktom.  An effect is allowed to not result in anything, but cannot initiate if you know for a fact that it will do nothing.

 

Also, FFG still hasn't gotten back to me on this subject.

 

Well, a passive or continuous "effect" may still be allowed to result in nothing during resolution, but it is entirely consistent with the "Janos ruling" that a triggered effect is not. If so, the ruling would also impact target eligibility in a way that ensures some successful resolution. I'd say that's the gist of the debate.

 

My guess is that FFG hasn't gotten back to you because they are truly analyzing it, trying to make sure they only have to answer once, rather than throwing out a ruling that they later have to recant. (~Cause that certainly hasn't happened. Recently.)



#38 Bomb

Bomb

    Cool Person Club

  • Members
  • 1,762 posts

Posted 06 May 2014 - 01:49 PM

Haha.  I actually meant Triggered Effect. 



#39 mdc273

mdc273

    Member

  • Members
  • 975 posts

Posted 07 May 2014 - 10:36 AM

 


Edit: If I were a TO and a Martell player attempted to play the card and no viable targets were selected I'd tell them to put the card back in their hand. That's the letter of the law at the moment. The initiation resulted in no possibility of the effect resolving and as such the card could not be played. It's a weird outlier where you're giving information away, but it's technically right.

 

I don't think you can do that.  The only way you can really do that is if there were NO viable targets available.  You can't start to initiate an effect and then "undo" it just because the opponent did not choose a target.

 

In fact, this is a big part of my debate with ktom.  An effect is allowed to not result in anything, but cannot initiate if you know for a fact that it will do nothing.

 

Also, FFG still hasn't gotten back to me on this subject.

 

 

Oh I agree it's a terrible way to handle it, but it illustrates the point that there is no way to handle it. As Ktom said, they probably actually are assessing it. This example is going to be the precedent of a whole lot of possibilities going forward. They have to get that answer right.

 

I could say take it back. Another TO might say discard it. But the real problem is at the point of initiation. The TO can only handle the issue once he's called over, but the problem comes BEFORE calling the TO over. Therefore the ruling must be clear to players. The clarity to the TO is irrelevant (for the most part).

 

Let's take this example:

 

Player 1 accuses player 2 of trying to play Game of Cyvasse illegally to de-activate Tywin.

*Edit: Player 1 has a standing Tywin and a knelt Tyrion. Player 2 has no characters with an intrigue icon*

 

What do you do as TO?

 

I can only think of two solutions. Either the TO agrees and forces the player to put it back in their hand or they don't. There-in is the crux of the actual issue (assuming the 'if able' is a part of the initiation). I was just trying to narrow it down as I felt that it hadn't been discussed.


Edited by mdc273, 07 May 2014 - 10:38 AM.


#40 Bomb

Bomb

    Cool Person Club

  • Members
  • 1,762 posts

Posted 07 May 2014 - 10:47 AM

I don't have a problem with a TO ruling something was played illegally and telling them to return the card to their hand.  That is fine.  The problem I had with your previous scenario is that you were suggesting to return the card to the players hand based on a decision the opponent makes.  That is something you cannot do unless the card was illegally played in the first place. 

 

The play has to be illegal before you play the card.  It cannot be illegal just because the opponent chooses an option that makes the card resolve unsuccessfully. 


Edited by Bomb, 07 May 2014 - 10:47 AM.





© 2013 Fantasy Flight Publishing, Inc. Fantasy Flight Games and the FFG logo are ® of Fantasy Flight Publishing, Inc.  All rights reserved.
Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Contact | User Support | Rules Questions | Help | RSS