"Play at the beginning of the challenges phase." We should read this literally or is it mistake?

Does anyone have problems with logging out while you click on some post? I'm not sure if it is Firefox 5 bug or this forum.

ktom said: the resolution is just considered to be unsuccessful? The "effect" part of the ability or effect just doesn't take place (as indicated in the cancel example in the Core Set Rules)? Seems to me that "does not take place" (because it was interrupted and prevented from happening) and "does take place unsuccessfuly" are two different things. We have no example about canceling framework event. Besides, what I meant about skipping, that even if step 3 exists, nothing happen there, so we can safely skip to step 4.

viktorvektor said: Can I after lost chalange use it as character to fullfill military claim but also run this response? No. If she is killed then you cannot remove her from play again. See "Rules Exception", page 16.

Ok, I'm too stupid for this game, so I may be wrong, but here are my doubts: 1) "the determination of challenge winner" - how can we be sure that this does not mean framework event only? It's possible that designers wanted all 6 cards to work similar. 2) ktom said: However, the1andonlime is completely correct that the play restrictions of "if an opponent would win dominance/initiative..." are met, making it legal to play the card In my opinion meeting "if" restriction is not enough, you must be able to cancel the "target". If the initiative count is already canceled, then you cannot play second copy Ahead of the Tide. 3) After successful cancel, we cannot go to step 3 and resolve effect, because this effect was canceled. So I believe we go to step 4 after successful cancel. I don't buy argument, that after cancel we resolve something in step 3 (automatic win in this example). We resolve this in step 2, just like any other effect in this game. Once initiated (and not canceled), an effect must resolve completely, so autowin happens in step 2. I would like to see it in FAQ (and generally what happens after successful cancel).

ktom said: What seems to happen, though, is that the "cancel the count" part on copy #2 fizzles because there is no count to cancel. So you say it's legal to play cancel response even if there is nothing to cancel? And what happened with this interpretation?

ktom said: #3 is plainly inconsistent, but seems to be the heart of your reasoning. Didn't we establish that save does not work on effect (Valar kills everyone, it's not interrupted and prevented by save), but on killing (or affecting character) itself? That's why I said that save and cancel responses are different things.

ktom said: So the answer to "where do you see a 'cannot be saved' rule" is "nowhere, but if I can define a point of initiation, the rule 'cannot be canceled because there is no point of initiation' shouldn't be applicable." I then used the fact that saves and cancels share timing related to points of initiation because of their interrupt nature to demonstrate the point of initiation. Ok, but "Because there is no point of initiation, they cannot be canceled" is part of definition. If you find point of initiation, then it is passive not constant. This definition pretty much says "all constant effects has no point of initiation, thus cannot be canceled". That's one thing. The other thing is "point of initiation" - it's a game not reality. In reality everything has beginning. Even Threat. In the game you need description when it triggers/begins. If you have no description, it's constant. Imagine an effect that played on Drogon doesn't allow duplicates attached to him. This effect is a lasting effect "during marshalling phase". Now you play Black Hatchling. What do you see now? Whenever you see at the situation on the table during marshalling phase, hatchling's text continously tries to become dupe again and again. So it cannot be passive. It works all the time. It will successfully attach himself at the beginning of challenges phase.

aulitier said: Renly is considered dead (but save). Just to be sure: Renly is NOT considered dead (because he was saved). Character is dead when he is successfully killed (i.e. not saved successfully). dead = killed

oshi said: Would either of the following trigger Killer of the Wounded... Forever Burning on a STR 0 Character Aegons Legacy with 0 cards in shadow No, you didn't reduce character's STR.

ktom said: Then every time you save someone from a constant terminal effect, you break the rules And where do you see "cannot be saved" rule?

@ktom: If you can cancel constant effect, then you break this rule "Because there is no point of initiation, they cannot be canceled." But nevermind, the point I'm trying to make is that players must be able to differentiate constant effects from passive effects without your help. It's not our fault, that rules and cards for this game are poor and designers react rarely (and years later) for such things. Seriously, FFG should write on every card box: "This is not a stand-alone game; an A Game of Thrones: The Card Game Core Set and ktom* is required to play." * FFG is not responsible for ktom's answers and reserves the right, that ktom can be wrong. If you believe ktom, you are doing this without any warranty and at your own risk.

rings said: And Rogue, are you seriously comparing Brienne to an agenda? Why do you think I was comparing Brienne to an agenda? It seems to me that you compare cards in draw deck to an agenda. I thought this topic was about better deck diversity (maybe I misread something). Ideas like blanking all agenda is anti-diversity.

ktom said: Then where's the point of initiation for Viserys when Threat is revealed? Or playing Viserys from your hand when Threat is revealed? Saves and cancels share the same point of initiation, don't they? If you don't like my interpretation, then consult with Nate, but you probably don't care. If hatchling were passive, then it would be "When this card comes into play and if you control Drogon, attach Black Hatchling and all of its duplicates to Drogon as duplicates." Then you could cancel it.

ktom said: But the effect of turning it into a dupe is not "continuously." Once it becomes a dupe, the resolution of the effect is over (another indication that it is not a constant effect). By saying this I wanted to underline, that it is a constant effect, because if you wound cancel it (theoretically), then the effect applies again and again, not just when you play that card. This way designers made sure that you don't have both characters at the same time (excluding rare situations).ktom said: But the Hatchling's text is gone as soon as it becomes a dupe (dupes are textless), so obviously, maintaining it as a dupe is not dependent on a continuous effect of the Hatchling. Obviously.

ktom said: No. Terminal effects are, by "definition," lasting effects. Yeah, and they are continously affecting the game.ktom said: They can be created by constant, passive, or triggered effects. You perfectly know, that once triggered (and not canceled), an effect simply continously affects the game and you can do nothing to stop this. Doesn't matter if it was passive at the beginning.ktom said: Or are you suggesting that "Any Phase: Pay 2 gold to choose a character. Until the end of the phase, that character gets -1 STR and is killed if its STR is 0." is a constant effect? I did not say anything like that. I'm talking about concepts, but you nitpicking terminology as always.ktom said: A save that otherwise makes the terminal effect inapplicable (without making the character moribund) is just as good. This so obvious I don't think it needed explanation. Still don't know why you want to apply save rules also to cancel rules. Totally different things.ktom said: why couldn't I use that on Fishwhiskers when I lose my last Warship? Because rules forbid it - there is no point of initiation.

Saturnine said: At what point int the timing structure does the Hatchling turn from character into dupe? Immediately and continously.

ktom said: isn't there a "point of initiation" when the character is played, bringing them under your control for the first time? If a card says about it, then yes (Eddard Stark). If a card does not say about it, then no. Point of initiation means that an effect triggers once, thus can be canceled, and after is successfuly canceled, that effect does not trigger again. "These abilities are identified by their card text, which indicates when the ability initiates." It's all here, otherwise people wouldn't agree what is what. Sometimes cards are poorly written (refugees) and that's another thing (WH Invasion developed forced effects to avoid that), but you must have something to rely on.ktom said: The plot is a constant effect, but the new application of it to a new card has the potential to create a point of initiation (which is needed to cancel, save, or Respond to). But that's coming from another card's explicite text. And that point of initiation serves for that other card, not the original card.ktom said: I would argue that you have the opportunity to cancel, but I would also argue that it is a "terminal effect" in that canceling it won't stop the overall conditions from being true. As such, it would be reasonable to apply the "cannot save from the terminal effect unless you also remove it from the terminal state" rule to the possibility of cancel (which has the same timing factors as saves). No. You just make up things. There is no such thing as passive terminal effect. Terminal effect by definition is continuous. You mixing moribund rule exception, which stops or ignore, not cancel, continous effect. That's why FAQ "terminal effects" rule says about save responses, not save and cancel responses - the same timing but different thing. If not for moribund rule exception, then you couldn't save Viserys from Threat.ktom said: Since you can apply both "constant" effects at the same time without a paradoxical result, you do. Now ok, but at first you were suggesting that Threat works first. It's important to know why.

Saturnine said: I'm sure you are right, but I can't think of an example. Got a card in mind? Ser Rodrik Cassel gets +2 STR while defending.

Saturnine said: Constant effect don't check for a condition to see if they apply Not true.

smadkins said: auto-kill on an opponent Just to be clear if I understood the question: Ice kills any participating character (no matter if you are attacking or defending). You can trigger Ice after declaring defenders (though after declaring attackers is also possible, if you really want to kill your own character). Killing that 1 character does not mean you auto win challenge - you still counts STR during resolution to see who wins. Of course if opponent has no participating characters left, then his STR is 0.

smadkins said: I'm assuming that this means to kneel another player's card Yes. Of course if you really like, you can kneel your character. If card does not say "opponent's" or "your" etc., then it can be any character. smadkins said: Do you have to use Ice If you see bold text (marshalling:, any phase:, response: etc.) that means it is optional - card's controler decides if he wants to trigger such effect (hence the name: triggered effect). smadkins said: if you are on offense with Ice, is that just an auto-kill Yep. Note that Ice has 2 gold cost. It's not cheap.

ktom said: it does have a point of initiation - when the second of the Dragon/Hatchling pair comes into play under your control. This way you can explain pretty much everything you want e.g. Threat from the north has point of initiation the moment it's revealed. In case of refugee (If you do not win dominance), we have point of initiation, because of dominance framework point in time, but "controling character" is something continuous (unless cards says exactly controling when - "These abilities are identified by their card text, which indicates when the ability initiates."). If you do not control a Warship location, kneel Fishwhiskers. So you say I can cancel this, the moment my warship is blanked?

Yeah, you cannot do this. Check FAQ page 16, moribund rules exception - no card can be removed from play twice.

All correct, if you put Catelyn first, because if you kill the only participating character, then challenge immediately ends without resolution. Also note, that Catelyn is put into play knelt as defender - you don't kneel her - it's not declaration.