Jump to content



Photo

Son of the Mist


  • Please log in to reply
11 replies to this topic

#1 Bolzano

Bolzano

    Member

  • Members
  • 344 posts

Posted 10 April 2013 - 09:33 AM

If I play the last card from my hand, and draw a card passively within the same action window, can Son of the Mist still claim 1 power?

Text:
Clansman Response: After a player plays the last card from his or her hand, kneel a Clansman character to have Son of the Mist claim 1 power.

Based of House Bolton Refugee/Winterfell Castle/Dreadfort ruling, I'd guess he cannot claim power. The "last card from his or her hand" is replaced by a new one that was not played, closing the Response opportunity.



#2 ktom

ktom

    Member

  • Members
  • 7,207 posts

Posted 10 April 2013 - 03:10 PM

Correct. Play restrictions are checked at the time the Response is triggered, not at the time the response opportunity is created. You cannot trigger Son of the Mist if you have cards in hand at the time you want to trigger the response.



#3 mdc273

mdc273

    Member

  • Members
  • 950 posts

Posted 11 April 2013 - 07:43 AM

ktom said:

Correct. Play restrictions are checked at the time the Response is triggered, not at the time the response opportunity is created. You cannot trigger Son of the Mist if you have cards in hand at the time you want to trigger the response.

I don't understand. The play restriction was met. They played the last car from their hand.

Let's take this to something clearer:

1) I play the last card from my hand.

2) Action window opens.

3) Passive causes you to draw a card.

4) Son of Mist response

5) Playing of card resolves.

You met the play restriction. Even checking AFTER they drew a card, they met the play restriction. There was a point at which they played the last card from their hand If you were to announce it you would say:

1) "He plays No Quarter, the last card in his hand. He better hope his opponent doesn't have Narrow Escape."

2) "Oh, then he activates Harrenhal and gets to add a card to his hand, giving him a card to prevent Narrow Escape!"

What you seem to be suggesting is that Son of the Mist actually says "Response: If you have no cards in your hand and you just played a card, claim 1 power."

Let's look at this example:

I have card that says "Any Phase: Make your opponent do the hokey pokey, then discard a card."

Could I use Son of the Mist after that if I had two cards in my hand? I would say no. I did not play the last card in my hand. I had a card discarded from my hand after I played the second to last card.

Chain of events:

1) I play the second to last card in my hand.

2) My opponent does the hokey pokey.

3) I discard a card.

I haven't met the play restriction, so I shouldn't be able to play it.



#4 ktom

ktom

    Member

  • Members
  • 7,207 posts

Posted 11 April 2013 - 10:25 AM

mdc273 said:

1) I play the last card from my hand.

2) Action window opens.

3) Passive causes you to draw a card.

4) Son of Mist response

5) Playing of card resolves.

You may want to check your order here again. The card you play in Step 1 has to resolve (in Step 3) before any passives (Step 4) or Responses (Step 5) take place.

mdc273 said:

You met the play restriction. Even checking AFTER they drew a card, they met the play restriction.
No. They don't. The game has no memory of what the game state was like when the card was played. It can only look at the game state when the Response is triggered. Things like kneeling/standing status, STR, cards in hand, effective card type, etc.

If playing the "last card" still counts, even if you get more cards in hand before the Response can be triggered, then shouldn't playing a 2-STR Bolton Refugee not count for "after you play a Bolton character of 3-STR or higher," even if it gains STR before the Response is triggered?

mdc273 said:

There was a point at which they played the last card from their hand
Just like there was a point where the Bolton character played from hand was 2-STR. Why does one situation come up one way and the other go the opposite?

Let's go the other way with the Bolton example. Let's say I play Roose Bolton from my hand (printed STR = 3) while Threat from the North is someone's active plot. I can't trigger the Response on The Dreadfort because when I get around to triggering the Response, his STR is 2, right?

So, why did playing Roose not count as "after you play a character with 3-STR or higher" when STR was modified before the Response, but playing down to 0 cards still count as "after you play the last card" when number of cards in hand was modified before the Response? I need you to differentiate between those two situations before I can agree that the "after you play your last card" play restriction is met.

mdc273 said:

If you were to announce it you would say:

1) "He plays No Quarter, the last card in his hand. He better hope his opponent doesn't have Narrow Escape."

2) "Oh, then he activates Harrenhal and gets to add a card to his hand, giving him a card to prevent Narrow Escape!"

This example makes no sense to me. Since Harrenhal is a Response to the character being killed and No Escape is an Any Phase action that would be played by the opponent after No Quarter and all Responses to it are resolved, wouldn't the person playing No Quarter always have the opportunity to use the Response on Harrenhal and get a new card in hand before the opponent had a chance to play Narrow Escape?



#5 mdc273

mdc273

    Member

  • Members
  • 950 posts

Posted 12 April 2013 - 08:54 AM

ktom said:

mdc273 said:

You may want to check your order here again. The card you play in Step 1 has to resolve (in Step 3) before any passives (Step 4) or Responses (Step 5) take place.

 

mdc273 said:

You met the play restriction. Even checking AFTER they drew a card, they met the play restriction.

No. They don't. The game has no memory of what the game state was like when the card was played. It can only look at the game state when the Response is triggered. Things like kneeling/standing status, STR, cards in hand, effective card type, etc.

 

If playing the "last card" still counts, even if you get more cards in hand before the Response can be triggered, then shouldn't playing a 2-STR Bolton Refugee not count for "after you play a Bolton character of 3-STR or higher," even if it gains STR before the Response is triggered?

mdc273 said:

There was a point at which they played the last card from their hand

Just like there was a point where the Bolton character played from hand was 2-STR. Why does one situation come up one way and the other go the opposite?

 

Let's go the other way with the Bolton example. Let's say I play Roose Bolton from my hand (printed STR = 3) while Threat from the North is someone's active plot. I can't trigger the Response on The Dreadfort because when I get around to triggering the Response, his STR is 2, right?

So, why did playing Roose not count as "after you play a character with 3-STR or higher" when STR was modified before the Response, but playing down to 0 cards still count as "after you play the last card" when number of cards in hand was modified before the Response? I need you to differentiate between those two situations before I can agree that the "after you play your last card" play restriction is met.

mdc273 said:

If you were to announce it you would say:

 

1) "He plays No Quarter, the last card in his hand. He better hope his opponent doesn't have Narrow Escape."

2) "Oh, then he activates Harrenhal and gets to add a card to his hand, giving him a card to prevent Narrow Escape!"

This example makes no sense to me. Since Harrenhal is a Response to the character being killed and No Escape is an Any Phase action that would be played by the opponent after No Quarter and all Responses to it are resolved, wouldn't the person playing No Quarter always have the opportunity to use the Response on Harrenhal and get a new card in hand before the opponent had a chance to play Narrow Escape?

 

That bit about 5) resolving was me short-handing the card going moribund and the actual action window closing. That's like twice as much text!

Let me run this by you and make sure this is what you are saying:

1) The game knows who played the card because during the action window, the current player has the card in front of them and is controlling the card by the nature of being the one who played it. It does not need to remember this.

2) The game then checks at the time of Son of the Mists initiation that the player whose card is currently in play in front of them as having just been played has no cards in hand.

That leads to a different problem which I'll get to after the whole Bolton thing. I have to say I have disagreed with the Bolton Refugee/Dreadfort ruling from the start. There are two ways that I would have preferred that ruling to have gone:

Option 1) The constant effect affecting Bolton Refugees resolves fully before the card is considered played. It would hit the table and never even be considered to be strength 2 at any point. The calculation and new strength would be fully resolved before the card finishes coming into play. The game-log would not say you played a strength 2 character that became strength 3. The game-log would say you played a strength 3 character. The same would be true with Roose. Game-logs would say you played a strength 2 character, not a strength 3 that got reduced to 2. There is no disconnect between the play restriction and check timing. This is cleaner and still allows Dreadfort to work as ruled. It woud unfortunately prevent playing Pyrophobia off of Threat from the North.

Option 2) The constant effect affecting Bolton Refugees is applied after it hits the table. The card you played is considered in game-logs to be strength 2 and you will never be able to initiate any effects other than ones that initiate upon playing a strength 2 character. Same with Roose, he would have come into play as Strength 3 in game-logs and then be reduced to 2. This contradicts the Dreadfort ruling, but allows Pyrophobia to work with Threat from the North.

I feel option 2 should have always been the ruling from the get-go. Creating this bizarre chain of events has lead to my fuzziness on Son of the Mist. This is where that earlier logic causes issues as well. Let's take the Ambush from the Plains sequence of events:

1) My opponent plays Ambush from the Plains with 1 card remaining in hand. (Which means Ambush from the Plains was not the last card in their hand at the time of its playing)

2) They put the single card in hand into play resolving Ambush from the Plains and ending with no cards in hand. (Note they did not play the card. They put it into play meaning they Put Into Play the last card in their hand)

3) Either I can activate Son of the Mist or I can't.

Taking what you said literally leads me to conclude that I should rule that Son of the Mist could be activated in this instance.

Let's look at another example. Son of the Mist, Harrenhal, Cersei's Attendant, Cersei, and No Quarter.

1) My opponent plays No Quarter as the last card from their hand and kills Cersei Lannister while I have a Cersei's Attendant in play.

2) I activate Son of the Mist and it claims a power.

3) They activate Harrenhal and gain a card.

4) I activate Cersei's Attendant and kneel one of their characters.

vs.

1) My opponent plays No Quarter as the last card from their hand and kills Cersei Lannister while I have a Cersei's Attendant in play.

2) I activate Cersei's Attendant and kneel one of their characters.

3) They activate Harrenhal and gain a card.

4) I can no longer activate Son of the Mist.

Those two examples are accurate? If someone screws up and lets their opponent use Harrenhal before Son of the Mist I have to tell them they don't get the power?



#6 Bolzano

Bolzano

    Member

  • Members
  • 344 posts

Posted 12 April 2013 - 11:38 PM

ktom said:

Correct. Play restrictions are checked at the time the Response is triggered, not at the time the response opportunity is created. You cannot trigger Son of the Mist if you have cards in hand at the time you want to trigger the response.

Note that the condition is not to have 0 cards in hand, but to have played the last card.

And what I said, that drawing a new card makes the previously played one to become "NOT the last card in my hand", is the point I have some doubt on - even though I think we're probably right.



#7 mdc273

mdc273

    Member

  • Members
  • 950 posts

Posted 15 April 2013 - 08:29 AM

Bolzano said:

ktom said:

 

Correct. Play restrictions are checked at the time the Response is triggered, not at the time the response opportunity is created. You cannot trigger Son of the Mist if you have cards in hand at the time you want to trigger the response.

 

 

Note that the condition is not to have 0 cards in hand, but to have played the last card.

And what I said, that drawing a new card makes the previously played one to become "NOT the last card in my hand", is the point I have some doubt on - even though I think we're probably right.

This is my primary point of contention and is why I asked the Ambush from the Plains question. If drawing a card denies the ability because you wind up with an extra card in hand, why would the opposite not be true? Why would Ambush from the Plains not let you trigger Son of the Mist? Probably needs an official ruling as this seems like a very strange, but valid, situation.



#8 Rehlow

Rehlow

    Member

  • Members
  • 51 posts

Posted 17 April 2013 - 05:10 PM

If drawing a card before responding with Son of the Mist prevents its response from being triggered, then the following is true, but feels wrong:

2 Son of the Mist, some other characters, and Harrenhal in play.

Opponent plays No Quarter as last card in hand and kills a character.

Respond with Son of the Mist #1.

Opponent responds with Harrenhal and draws a card.

Cannot respond with Son of the Mist #2.

Really?



#9 mdc273

mdc273

    Member

  • Members
  • 950 posts

Posted 19 April 2013 - 06:31 AM

Rehlow said:

If drawing a card before responding with Son of the Mist prevents its response from being triggered, then the following is true, but feels wrong:

2 Son of the Mist, some other characters, and Harrenhal in play.

Opponent plays No Quarter as last card in hand and kills a character.

Respond with Son of the Mist #1.

Opponent responds with Harrenhal and draws a card.

Cannot respond with Son of the Mist #2.

Really?

Correct. That is how I would rule it in a tournament based on what has been said. I believe that is, in fact, an accurate depiction of how the play restriction at time of playing works. It's why I illustrated the difference in timing making a huge difference on something seemingly so minor. I'm not a fan of it (can you tell? hah!), but I will rule as close to how the rules are expected to be interpreted as possible.

On the flip side, I would rule that you could not use Son of the Mist after the Ambush from the Plains scenario. It does not feel like it is how the rules are meant to be interpreted and is a rather gray area. I was hoping for some insight on it from Ktom, but either he's given up on talking to me or is on vacation, lol.



#10 Khudzlin

Khudzlin

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,334 posts

Posted 21 April 2013 - 07:06 PM

If Ambush from the Plains puts a character into play from the hand and that character was the last card in that hand, then the last card has not been played, it has been put into play. On the other hand, if Ambush itself is the last card and the character comes from the discard pile, everyone will agree the last card has been played.



#11 mdc273

mdc273

    Member

  • Members
  • 950 posts

Posted 22 April 2013 - 08:51 AM

Khudzlin said:

If Ambush from the Plains puts a character into play from the hand and that character was the last card in that hand, then the last card has not been played, it has been put into play. On the other hand, if Ambush itself is the last card and the character comes from the discard pile, everyone will agree the last card has been played.

This depends on when the card is actually deemed as having been played, a new timing question. There's a lot of nuance here. Is a card considered played when it initiates or is it considered played when its effect fully resolves.

My original look at Ambush assumes the former, but in the latter case it would actually make sense. It still does not address the fact that checking at play restrictions at the time of initiation of an effect makes this an extremely odd case for Son of the Mist. While we all can agree Ambush wasn't the last card played, all Son of the Mist knows is that someone just played a card and that when it checks their hand, it has no cards. The game has no memory of the "last card played" otherwise the opposite of this would also be true. Son of the Mist would always successfully resolve even if the player draws a card. Maybe I'll actually send the question in and see what the answer is.



#12 Rehlow

Rehlow

    Member

  • Members
  • 51 posts

Posted 14 May 2013 - 05:51 PM

So I took all the draw 1 attachments out of my Son of the Mist deck and then this answer shows up in another thread

 

http://www.fantasyfl...=818286&efpag=0

 

 

I sent Damon this question, and a similar one regarding Quentyn Martell's draw effect Vs Cersei's Scheme. This was the response:
 
 
 
 
 
"Okay to understand how response effects work you need to understand that once a triggering condition has been met that effect can trigger. It does not matter if the card is affected by a later effect that changes the changes the current card state away form the one which was required. IT happened, that is all that matters.
 
Look at it this way, the speed limit is 30 MPH. You go 50. A police officer sees you clocks you on his radar gun at 50. You see the cop and slow down to 30 before he pulls in behind you and pulls you over. Telling him you were doing 30 before he caught up to you doesn't change the fact that you went over the speed limit. Same with the game. If Brothel Guard stands it can trigger its effect. That it is no longer standing later doesn't matter, as long as the Response is triggered in the appropriate window. The same is true of Cersei's Scheme and Quentyn Martell."
 
 
Looks like the deck building never ends. ;)





© 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