Errr, but per Ktom isn't the play illegal before you play the card? My scenario is dependent on the opponent choosing an option that makes the card fail to resolve, which is what Ktom was indicating as making the play illegal as far as I could tell.
Faq 5.0 page 10
Posted 08 May 2014 - 11:41 AM
Which is why I interpreted the rule as compelling the person triggering the event to choose a target (the first target chosen for Cyvasse, I might add) that would allow for successful resolution - i.e., something that will successfully kneel. Otherwise, you end up with this kind of paradox.
There is no paradox if the rule does not compel target choice, which is how Bomb interprets it, but you do end up with the logically unsatisfying result that the effect resolves in such a way that should have made it illegal to trigger.
Posted 08 May 2014 - 12:15 PM
And my interpretation is based on the term "possibility" in the FAQ entry. In this case it is possible for the effect to still resolve successfully because the opponent can still choose a target that can kneel. If you do not know it will resolve unsuccessfully, then it could still be triggered. I just don't agree that the triggerer of the effect must ensure it resolves successfully if there is a possibility it will still resolve successfully regardless of the target chosen(because the opponent could choose a target that can kneel and you can't guarantee that).
I am also not entirely convinced this particular effect is choosing targets during initiation(like Sloth suggested). The entire effect may be the target selection because it involves both players choosing targets. I'll let ktom rip that idea apart though.
Hopefully FFG gets back to me eventually though.
Edited by Bomb, 08 May 2014 - 12:16 PM.
Posted 23 May 2014 - 06:41 AM
I don't have any documentation but this was all verbal during the DC draft event weekend.
Hope this confirms it for everyone!
Posted 23 May 2014 - 09:47 AM
Posted 27 May 2014 - 06:48 AM
Couple of queries:
Can I still kneel a location to reduce the cost of something, even if I do not have suitable cards in my hand to marshal - does the restriction only apply when dealing with known cards
Is there a conflict between having to be able to resolve something and instances where the action is automatically cancelled - e.g. River Blockade cancels the first triggered location effect so technically, if I try to trigger a location effect am I trying to trigger something that I know is impossible to resolve?
Edited by HastAttack, 27 May 2014 - 06:48 AM.
Posted 27 May 2014 - 07:02 AM
B) Cancels are not considered when determining the potential success of an effect. It says that right in the rule. Otherwise, the Blockade would essentially mean "no triggered location effects each round," right?