Jump to content



Photo

Penny and The Laughing Storm


  • Please log in to reply
30 replies to this topic

#1 snowfrost

snowfrost

    Member

  • Members
  • 59 posts

Posted 06 January 2013 - 01:29 PM

I have TLS stand in play.Penny choose my character to kneel.

I must choose to kneel that character ,right?Because TLS's ability say "can't", I can't choose to do somthing that I can't,right?



#2 ktom

ktom

    Member

  • Members
  • 7,185 posts

Posted 06 January 2013 - 02:02 PM

snowfrost said:

I must choose to kneel that character ,right?Because TLS's ability say "can't", I can't choose to do somthing that I can't,right?
There is nothing in the game that stops you from choosing to do something that you cannot do. The classic example is that an effect that says "Choose and kneel a character" doesn't stop you from choosing and (unsuccessfully) kneeling a character that is already knelt, right?

What you are not allowed to do is initiate an effect that you cannot successfully pay the costs or meet the play restrictions for. So "cannot be killed" or "moribund," for example, stops you from initiating a kill effect against that character because the rules specifically defined it as an illegal target, making it impossible to meet the play restrictions necessary to initiate the effect.

So, by using the word "choose," Penny has a loophole. The effect forces you to "choose" A or B, and then execute it. So, since the choice of A or B is not specifically the initiation of what you choose, the choice of "discard" can be successful, even if the discard itself cannot be. It's like choosing to kneel a character that is already knelt.

In fact, that's another way to look at it. Penny's effect does not say to choose a standing character, so Penny's controller could choose a character that is already kneeling. But by doing so, you are not forced to discard a card just because choosing to kneel would be unsuccessful. You can choose to kneel the character, then laugh at Penny's controller for being short-sighted.

Now, if the word "choose" was not used in Penny's effect (i.e.: "The controller of that character either kneels that character or chooses and discards 1 card from his or her hand."), the choice of which effect to resolve would not be separate from its initiation, and you would be forced into a successful resolution, assuming one was available.



#3 snowfrost

snowfrost

    Member

  • Members
  • 59 posts

Posted 06 January 2013 - 04:46 PM

1.choose A or B

you can choose A or B as you want,even if A or B "can't do " or "do unsuccessfully",.

eg.penny&TSL

 

2.choose and do X

(1)you can choose A,whether do X successful or not.

eg. A Game of Cyvasse,you can choose someone that is kneeled

(2)you can't choose A that can't do X

eg.Marched to the Wall,you can't choose someone that can't be discard from play

 

3.choose A,do X

you can choose A,even if A "can't do X"or"do unsuccessfully"

eg.House Umber Berserkers,you can choose someone that can't be killed(eg.Beric Dondarrion)

 

am I right?thanks.



#4 Khudzlin

Khudzlin

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,333 posts

Posted 06 January 2013 - 07:09 PM

"Choose and do X" and "Choose A. Do X." are identical. The difference between A Game of Cyvasse and House Umber Berserkers is that a knelt character is a legal target for a kneel effect, while a character that "cannot be killed" isn't a legal target for a kill effect (just like a character previously targeted by Black Cells isn't a legal target for a kneel effect). Immunities are also applicable: The Red Viper (PotS) is immune to events and character abilities, so can be targeted by neither.



#5 J_Roel

J_Roel

    Member

  • Members
  • 248 posts

Posted 07 January 2013 - 12:21 AM

Just out of curiosity (and to make sure I understand this distinction correctly), if a character has been hit with The Black Cells, you can't choose the kneeling option, right?


"...and Balerion... his fire was as black as his scales, his wings so vast that whole towns were swallowed up in their shadow when he passed over head."


#6 Khudzlin

Khudzlin

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,333 posts

Posted 07 January 2013 - 12:50 AM

As Ktom said, you can still choose either option with Penny, regardless of whether it will succeed or not.



#7 J_Roel

J_Roel

    Member

  • Members
  • 248 posts

Posted 07 January 2013 - 04:51 AM

Based on the distinction you both made of not being allowed to choose a "can not be killed" character for an effect that will eventually try to kill them, why can you choose a "can not be knelt or stood" character for the effect that will try to kneel them? Does that distinction only apply to kill effects?


"...and Balerion... his fire was as black as his scales, his wings so vast that whole towns were swallowed up in their shadow when he passed over head."


#8 ktom

ktom

    Member

  • Members
  • 7,185 posts

Posted 07 January 2013 - 05:07 AM

OK, here's where the confusion comes from as well as how it actually works:

The Rule: You cannot initiate an effect unless you can initiate it successfully. (This includes paying costs, meeting play restrictions, and choosing targets.)

The Common Confusion: The rule is often interpreted as: "You cannot initiate an effect unless you can resolve it successfully." (Obviously, this is very different from the actual rule.)

 

One of the major sources of thinking that "The Rule" should be treated as "The Common Confusion" is acually grounded in the way immunity and the word "cannot" work. People forget that immunity and "cannot" do two separate and distinct things:

  1. They make it illegal to target the immune/"cannot" card with an effect that would do X.
  2. They make it so that if an effect that does X is successfully initiated, the resolution of X will be unsuccessful for that card.

The problem is that #1 makes it so that you cannot target a CBK character with a kill effect, which makes it so that you are not able to successfully initiate that kill effect. (The Rule, following #1 of how "cannot" works.) But people tend to think that it is #2 of how "cannot" works that has made the kill effect unsuccessful. That is, they think that the initiation was illegal because the character would not have been killed. But that's not what happened. What happened was that the initiation was illegal because you did not have a valid target - which is a basic requirement for successful initiation.

 

Now, once an effect is successfully initiated, as much of it resolves as possible - but there is no guarantee that any of it will, or any requirement that any of it must. So long as you can legally initiate it, you can legally play an effect - even if there is no practical outcome. For example, if it is the Dominance phase and you kneel 4 standing influence, you can play Westeros Bleeds - even if there are no characters in play to discard. You met all of the requirements to successfully initiate the effect: you just didn't get any return on your investment.

So that's what this all boils down to: If you can successfully initiate the effect (by meeting its play restrictions and targeting requirements and paying the full cost), initiation will be successful. But a successful initiation does not require or guarantee a successful resolution.

Now, let's look at those various situations (in order of simplicity).

1. "Choose and do X (to A)."  - This is the basic situation. Whether or not X will be successful has no bearing on the choice of A; so you can choose A, even if X is impossible to do to A. This is the "Choose and kneel a kneeling character" situation. However, watch for other, outside effects that independently make A an illegal choice for the effect (for example, if A is "cannot be X").  Examples: No Quarter, Meereenese Brothel

2. "Choose A. Do X." - As Khudzlin says, FFG has ruled that despite the different format, this is exactly the same as #1. So the answer for "Choose and do X (to A)" is the same answer for "Choose A. Do X."  Examples: The Lion's Will, House Umber Berserkers.

3. "Choose X or Y. Do that to A" -  Here, you are not choosing targets, but rather choosing which effect will resolve. You haven't actually started doing X or Y to A yet because your choice is required to set one of them in motion. You are, for all intents and purposes, building the "Choose A. Do X." effect on the fly - and there is nothing that says X is required to be successful once the effect is initiated, remember? As such, it is perfectly legal to choose to set an unsuccessful X in motion, even if choosing to set Y in motion would have led to a successful effect resolution.  Examples: Penny, PotS-Theon Greyjoy.

4. "Do X or Y to A." - The difference between this and #3 is the real headache for most people. Intuitively, they want #3 to work like #4, but the lack of the word "choose" before "X or Y" makes a huge difference in the template of this game. Unlike #3, where there is a choice of which effect will even attempt to resolve (with the one not chosen never even getting the chance to resolve), the fact that there is no formal choice between X and Y means that the game will try to resolve both of them. This template will try to resolve all options until one of them is successful (in the order determined by the person identified in by the card's text - with the controller of the card being the "default" determiner). (I know: you want to say that the First Player decides all timing conflicts. But that's only true if there is no effect or rule saying that someone else should decide the timing conflict. These effects always indicate a player - although it is often through the "you" of command, which applies to the controller of the card.) So, whichever is first (X or Y), if it is successful, the effect stops. If it is not, the effect moves on to the second. In the end, neither one has to be successful, but both are given the chance. (That's the difference to #3; the fact that you choose either X or Y means that the other is never given the chance.)  Examples: The White Book, Sorrowful Man (post errata).



#9 ktom

ktom

    Member

  • Members
  • 7,185 posts

Posted 07 January 2013 - 05:24 AM

J_Roel said:

Based on the distinction you both made of not being allowed to choose a "can not be killed" character for an effect that will eventually try to kill them, why can you choose a "can not be knelt or stood" character for the effect that will try to kneel them? Does that distinction only apply to kill effects?
No. The distinction does not only apply to kill effects.

Remember that Penny chooses the target character before the other player determines what kind of effect (kneel or discard) she has actually initiated. Because the target character is chosen before the actual effect is determined, there is no requirement to choose the actual effect so as to make the target character "retroactively legal." 

So the difference between "Penny vs. 'cannot kneel' characters" and "Die By the Sword vs. 'cannot be killed' characters" is that with Penny, you don't know if it is a kneeling effect when the target is chosen, but with DbtS, you do know it is a killing effect when the target is chosen.



#10 J_Roel

J_Roel

    Member

  • Members
  • 248 posts

Posted 07 January 2013 - 09:14 AM

Oh, okay, slight misunderstanding. So, if Penny said "The controller of that character chooses to either kill that character or choose and discard a card from their hand" and it was a "cannot be killed" character, they would actually be allowed to choose "kill" even though it wouldn't work. I thought what you guys were implying above was that "cannot" meant (in this imaginary situation, for example) that you were never allowed to choose the opton if the word cannot was involved, which I should have realised was incorrect, as the original example was choosing to discard when Laughing Storm says "cannot discard cards from your hand"


"...and Balerion... his fire was as black as his scales, his wings so vast that whole towns were swallowed up in their shadow when he passed over head."


#11 snowfrost

snowfrost

    Member

  • Members
  • 59 posts

Posted 07 January 2013 - 01:40 PM

thanks,i think i got it.

but"FFG has ruled that despite the different format, this is exactly the same as #1.",i can't find this rule….



#12 Adkadi

Adkadi

    Member

  • Members
  • 7 posts

Posted 07 January 2013 - 11:42 PM

ktom said:

1. "Choose and do X (to A)."  - This is the basic situation. Whether or not X will be successful has no bearing on the choice of A; so you can choose A, even if X is impossible to do to A. This is the "Choose and kneel a kneeling character" situation. However, watch for other, outside effects that independently make A an illegal choice for the effect (for example, if A is "cannot be X").  Examples: No Quarter, Meereenese Brothel

 

Cannot we consider that a kneeling character cannot be knelt the same way we consider a noble character with Power of Blood cannot be killed? I have never understand this rule.



#13 ktom

ktom

    Member

  • Members
  • 7,185 posts

Posted 08 January 2013 - 02:08 AM

Adkadi said:

Cannot we consider that a kneeling character cannot be knelt the same way we consider a noble character with Power of Blood cannot be killed? I have never understand this rule.
If you want those situations to be the same, then you need some rule or card effect somewhere that says "kneeling characters cannot be knelt" - the same way that Power of Blood is a rule or card effect that says "Nobles cannot be killed." To extend the protections and applications of the word "cannot" to something, there has to be something (a rule or card effect) that uses that word.

If you treat knelt characters as "cannot be knelt," you're making up a rule that is not written down anyway - and that FFG has continually declined to write.



#14 Adkadi

Adkadi

    Member

  • Members
  • 7 posts

Posted 08 January 2013 - 04:26 AM

Of course you are right, but it is still a little contradictory.

If you can kneel a kneeling character and because of that you can trigger an effect that do so, why couldn't you knelt a kneeling character in order to pay a cost?

I know that this is being the way to play this game but i dont see why we need rules which say us obvious things like these. Also, there are cards such as Game of Cyvasse whose text has "if able" words that wouldn't have sense to use. In fact, you can't kneel a kneeling character to fulfill this event.

 



#15 Bomb

Bomb

    Cool Person Club

  • Members
  • 1,675 posts

Posted 08 January 2013 - 04:45 AM

Adkadi said:

 

Of course you are right, but it is still a little contradictory.

If you can kneel a kneeling character and because of that you can trigger an effect that do so, why couldn't you knelt a kneeling character in order to pay a cost?

 

 

You can trigger any effect as long as you pay the costs and have legal targets.  For an effect that says "Choose and kneel a character.", you can choose a knelt character because it doesn't specify that the character must be standing.  "Choose and kneel a standing character." makes kneeling characters illegal targets for the effect.  There is nothing in the rules that states that you can only trigger effects as long as they are successful.  Kneeling a knelt character is always unsuccessful.

As for paying costs, you cannot kneel a knelt character to pay the cost for the effect.  Kneeling a knelt character will always be unsuccessful and if you cannot pay costs for an effect, you cannot trigger the effect.  You are mixing up "paying costs for an effect" and "resolving an effect".  You MUST pay the cost for an effect in order to trigger it.  You DO NOT have to successfully resolve it in order to trigger it.



#16 Ratatoskr

Ratatoskr

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,523 posts

Posted 08 January 2013 - 04:55 AM

Adkadi said:

If you can kneel a kneeling character and because of that you can trigger an effect that do so, why couldn't you knelt a kneeling character in order to pay a cost?

You can't kneel a kneeling character. What you can do is choose an already kneeling character as the target of a kneel effect. Big difference. That's also the reason why you can't pay the cost of kneeling a character with an already knelt character. Because a cost must be paid fully und successfully in order for the subsequent effect to resolve, i.e. if the cost is to kneel a character, then you must kneel a character. And you can't kneel a kneeling character.

Adkadi said:

I know that this is being the way to play this game but i dont see why we need rules which say us obvious things like these. Also, there are cards such as Game of Cyvasse whose text has "if able" words that wouldn't have sense to use. In fact, you can't kneel a kneeling character to fulfill this event.

I'm not quite sure what you mean here, but if you're saying that the "if able" on Game of Cyvasse is unnecessary, you're wrong. If the "if able" wasn't there, you could play Cyvasse only if all players had a character with an INT icon in play. With the card worded as it is, you can play it if not all players do.



#17 Adkadi

Adkadi

    Member

  • Members
  • 7 posts

Posted 08 January 2013 - 05:31 AM


Bomb said:



 


Adkadi said:



 


Of course you are right, but it is still a little contradictory.


If you can kneel a kneeling character and because of that you can trigger an effect that do so, why couldn't you knelt a kneeling character in order to pay a cost?


 


 


You can trigger any effect as long as you pay the costs and have legal targets.  For an effect that says "Choose and kneel a character.", you can choose a knelt character because it doesn't specify that the character must be standing.  "Choose and kneel a standing character." makes kneeling characters illegal targets for the effect.  There is nothing in the rules that states that you can only trigger effects as long as they are successful.  Kneeling a knelt character is always unsuccessful.


As for paying costs, you cannot kneel a knelt character to pay the cost for the effect.  Kneeling a knelt character will always be unsuccessful and if you cannot pay costs for an effect, you cannot trigger the effect.  You are mixing up "paying costs for an effect" and "resolving an effect".  You MUST pay the cost for an effect in order to trigger it.  You DO NOT have to successfully resolve it in order to trigger it.


 


 


Sure, I get it and I know how to act in this situations. The point is the difference between be able to kill someone and be able to kneel someone. When we are allowing to trigger a kneeling effect because a knelt character can be chosen for this purpose and we aren't doing so in killing effects with Power of Blood we are saying that a kneeling char can be knelt the same way we know that a noble char cant be killed. So, if these are the conditions, we cant kill a noble char to pay a killing cost but then, isn't contradictory not be able to pay a kneeling cost with a knelt char? Actually the problem is not in this side but on the other one. It seems obvious that you have to kneel an standing character to pay a kneeling cost, just I dont see why that simple working can't be applied for everything, making the logic of ruling ambigous.


I want to clarify that I understand the way the rules try to work, in fact the difference we could see is that a kneeling character still can be knelt later as long as he stands in some time so we can trigger the effect although it doesnt resolve successfully. But I think that if we need a rule that says: You can't kneel a kneeling character, which at first seems to be obvious, we need a rule that says: You can kneel a kneeling character  but you cant consider that you kneel him if you are paying a cost.


Ratatoskr said:



 


I'm not quite sure what you mean here, but if you're saying that the "if able" on Game of Cyvasse is unnecessary, you're wrong. If the "if able" wasn't there, you could play Cyvasse only if all players had a character with an INT icon in play. With the card worded as it is, you can play it if not all players do.



You are right, I only focused on the kneeling part. My bad.


 


PD: I dont know how to do a multi-quote haha.



#18 mdc273

mdc273

    Member

  • Members
  • 947 posts

Posted 08 January 2013 - 06:13 AM

I think you're struggle comes from interpreting a knelt character as the same as "cannot be knelt" and a kneeling effect being required to be successful. An effect does not need to be able to execute successfully to be triggered, it simply needs to be able to be successfully initiated.

For a card like "Distraction" the initiation is to choose a character with a military icon. The resolution is to kneel the character. If you choose a standing character, Distraction successfully resolves with the effect of kneeling the character and allowing responses to the successful kneeling of a character to be triggered. If you choose a kneeling character the Distraction effect initiates, but does not successfully resolve. As it does not successfully resolve, the knelt character is not knelt again and responses to successfully kneeling a character can not be triggered. If the player tries to choose a character that is immune to events or does not have a military icon, Distraction cannot successfully initiate and therefore can not be played. These are each distinct and significantly different situations.

Cannot be killed prevents initiation of effects that have a resolution of killing a chosen character from initating by creating a framework by which the game denies the initiation of the effect. I attempt to initiate Die by the Sword on a Noble during a Power of Blood turn. The game simply goes "you can not do that" and the effect does not initiate. This is similar to the third situation for distraction above. You try to illegally initiate an effect and are disallowed from doing so.

Taking a more real life example, let's say someone already has the flu. I can inject them with the same strain of flu, but it will have no effect. This is more what is happening when you try to resolve a kneel effect on a kneeling character.

The example of not being able to initiate something is more like a restraining order. "You are not allowed to get within 200 feet of this person." This prevents you from doing anything that requires you to get within 200 feet of the person, meaning you can't even attempt to initiate something like a face to face conversation.

Edit: I suck at spell checking…



#19 Bomb

Bomb

    Cool Person Club

  • Members
  • 1,675 posts

Posted 08 January 2013 - 06:17 AM

You cannot target a card that has immunity to the cards effects.  You cannot target a card for an effect that has "cannot be X" applied to it, where X is a particular effect.

The below is from the FAQ:

(3.15) Targetting and Immunity
A card cannot be chosen as a target of effects
to which it is immune.

(4.3) The word "cannot"
If an effect has the word "cannot" in its
description, then it is an absolute: That effect
may not be overridden by other effects.
For example, if Wildfire Assault (CORE
L191) is played, which has an effect that kills
characters and "cannot be saved," then a card
like Bodyguard (CORE T150) that saves that
character would not work. Also note that if a
card cannot be saved, a player cannot even
attempt to save it with a saving card or effect.
Note, however, that Wildfire Assault may still
be canceled, because it does not have the text
"cannot be canceled."
A character that cannot be killed/saved/etc.
may not be chosen for that effect.

 

As for costs, you can't trigger an effect if you can't pay a cost.  Paying a cost must be successful.  I have no idea what you are trying to get at when you compare "cannot be killed" when you must kill a character to pay a cost versus kneeling an already knelt character to pay a cost.  You can do neither in order to pay a cost.  This is completely different from eligible targets for card effects..



#20 ktom

ktom

    Member

  • Members
  • 7,185 posts

Posted 08 January 2013 - 07:18 AM

Adkadi said:

I want to clarify that I understand the way the rules try to work, in fact the difference we could see is that a kneeling character still can be knelt later as long as he stands in some time so we can trigger the effect although it doesnt resolve successfully. But I think that if we need a rule that says: You can't kneel a kneeling character, which at first seems to be obvious, we need a rule that says: You can kneel a kneeling character  but you cant consider that you kneel him if you are paying a cost.
The ruling has always been "you can attempt to kneel a character that is already kneeling, but it will not be successful."

The problem you are running into is that when the word "cannot" is specifically used in rules or card text, it means two separate, but distinct, things. Using the "Cannot be Killed" from Power of Blood as an example, those two things are:

  1. The "cannot be killed" card is not a legal target when initiating a kill effect.
  2. Even if a kill effect is successfully initiated, the "cannot be killed" card is not affected by it.

Since the word "cannot" has a specific definition in this game and there is no rule or card that specifically says "kneeling cards cannot be knelt," you do not apply the rules/definition for the word "cannot" to the situation.

 

So, the fact that you can attempt to kneel a character that is already kneeling, but the attempt will not be successful, means that #2 of the specific "cannot be" language applies to kneeling a character that is already knelt, but #1 does not. So a kneeling character is never successfully knelt again, but the fact that the effect will not be successful at resolution, does not reach backwards in time and make the kneeling character an ineligible target for the kneeling effect at initiation






© 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