A few questions

[radiskull 39]

 It'll return the character to your hand, but yeah.  Any reason you thought it wouldn't?

[Khudzlin 734]

Since it's a replacement effect rather than a save, it'll work.

[Calepin 0]

Because I wasn't sure if returned to my hand was consider saving the character.

[ktom 598]

If the word "save" doesn't appear in the text of a card, it cannot be considered a "save" effect. 

[alpha5099 71]

I'm about 99% certain that I know the answer to this, but I just wanted to double check, and searching hasn't turned up the answer. It came up in a game last weekend and it was a surprisingly contentious issue (I'll take full responsibility for it getting heated, I was being an ass, not my proudest moment).

 

I flip Valar, and have The Iron Cliffs with two gold on it. I discard both gold, saving two characters. This is legal, correct? My opponent felt that it wasn't, citing the "one response per trigger" rule. I think the confusion was over what constituted the trigger in question, my opponent was thinking that Valar itself was the trigger, when I believe it would be each character needing to be saved. Valar is going to kill Asha, I save her; Valar is going to kill Euron, I save him, and it doesn't matter that The Iron Cliffs saved Asha already, correct? Similarly, if I had had two influence and Maester Wendamyr, I could save him and stand him and use him to save someone else, all off the same kill effect.

[Bomb 66]

alpha5099 said:

I'm about 99% certain that I know the answer to this, but I just wanted to double check, and searching hasn't turned up the answer. It came up in a game last weekend and it was a surprisingly contentious issue (I'll take full responsibility for it getting heated, I was being an ass, not my proudest moment).

 

I flip Valar, and have The Iron Cliffs with two gold on it. I discard both gold, saving two characters. This is legal, correct? My opponent felt that it wasn't, citing the "one response per trigger" rule. I think the confusion was over what constituted the trigger in question, my opponent was thinking that Valar itself was the trigger, when I believe it would be each character needing to be saved. Valar is going to kill Asha, I save her; Valar is going to kill Euron, I save him, and it doesn't matter that The Iron Cliffs saved Asha already, correct? Similarly, if I had had two influence and Maester Wendamyr, I could save him and stand him and use him to save someone else, all off the same kill effect.

Each character you attempt to save has it's own save/cancel response window.

I'd agree with your friend on this if Iron Cliffs tried to cancel Valar overall and failed the first time.  Then afterward you could not attempt to cancel Valar with Iron Cliffs... however that is not the case...

Iron Cliffs can only make 1 save attempt per character per kill effect.

[radiskull 39]

 Iron Cliffs isn't a cancel.  "Cancel" means something very specific in this game; it's best not to call things that aren't saves "saves", and it's best not to call things that aren't cancels "cancels".  Iron Cliffs' effect is a save.

And yes, you can save as many characters as you wish with Iron Cliffs, provided you have the gold.  The "one response per trigger" rule would come into effect like this: You discard a gold to save Asha.  I cancel that effect with He Calls it Thinking.  What you can't do is then pay another gold to attempt to save Asha with Iron Cliffs again, although you could still save other characters with Iron Cliffs, and you could still play Risen From the Sea to save Asha.

[Bomb 66]

Well, I wasn't calling it a cancel effect and think you may have misunderstood my post from reading the hypothetical example I was giving.  I probably should have just gave a save effect example.  Besides, canceling Valar is not a save effect.

[Serazu 50]

1. My opponent controls a character with an attachment on, I control Jorah's Cohorts and Flaming-Pitch Tower. I win a POW challenge by 4 total STR...

May I first use the JC's Response to discard the attachment and then use the Tower's one to kill the character? I 'm asking because by the time I won the challenge only the JC Response was eligible to be activated, not both.

2. Concerning Limited Responses in general, is the limit applied to only one response per turn per card or just one limited response per turn no matter how many different cards with limited responses printed on them I control, i.e. once I use a limited response do I, in fact, spend ALL limited responses at my disposal for the turn?

[Khudzlin 734]

You look at the legality of the response at the moment you trigger it, not the moment the effect it responds to happened. A typical example is Chain attachments. There is one that allows you to put an attachment or character into play when attached character kneels. If you use that one to put into play another Chain, you can trigger the 2nd Chain even though it wasn't in play when the character knelt, because you're still in the same action window.

Limited Responses are 1 per player per turn, so using a Limited Response prevents you from using other Limited Responses for the rest of the turn. Contrast the ability on Robb Stark (LoW), which says "Limit once per turn" and corresponds to your other interpretation.

[ktom 598]

Serazu said:

1. My opponent controls a character with an attachment on, I control Jorah's Cohorts and Flaming-Pitch Tower. I win a POW challenge by 4 total STR...

May I first use the JC's Response to discard the attachment and then use the Tower's one to kill the character? I 'm asking because by the time I won the challenge only the JC Response was eligible to be activated, not both.

While Khudzlin's answer is correct, there is a bit more to consider here.

You do indeed look at the situation at the time the Response is triggered. So for Flame-Pitch tower, which can only choose characters without attachments, you are looking for a character without attachments at the time you trigger the location, not necessarily at the time you win the challenge.

Unfortunately, though, that does not mean that JC and Flame-Pitch Tower can combo on the same challenge. That's because of the moribund rules. When you use JC to discard the character's attachment, it goes moribund. It is still on the table. That means that, for winning the same challenge, when you go to trigger Flame-Pitch Tower, the attachment is still sitting there, making the character an illegal target for the location. It is not until the action window for resolving the challenge closes that the attachment is physically taken off the table. That's when the character becomes a legal target for the location, but by then, it is too late to trigger the Response.

[Serazu 50]

1. Concerning ASoS Euron Crows Eye, if after a challenge in which he participated resolves, can the opponent play cards like Red Vengeance and Burning on the Sand or does Euron's ability prevent him? Is Euron still considered attacking, when the outcome of the challenge is considered determined?

2. First player controls Scouting Vessel and plans on winning an unopposed POW challenge. His opponent has LOW Catelyn in hand. Can the first player, in the player action window and since he gets to take the first action, pass to let his opponent put Catelyn into play and then use the Vessel's ability to nulify her STR?

 

[ktom 598]

Serazu said:

1. Concerning ASoS Euron Crows Eye, if after a challenge in which he participated resolves, can the opponent play cards like Red Vengeance and Burning on the Sand or does Euron's ability prevent him? Is Euron still considered attacking, when the outcome of the challenge is considered determined?

Think of a card like Arianne, who says "While Arianne Martell is attacking, raise the Claim value on your revealed plot card by 1." She'd be pretty useless if as soon as the winner of the challenge was determined - but before the claim effect was initiated - attacking characters were no longer considered to be attacking. Or think of Deadly, a passive effect that requires the defender to kill a participating character. If characters were no longer considered to be participating as soon as the winner was determined, there would never be a legal target for Deadly.

Characters are considered to be participating until the end of the "resolve challenge" framework action window. This includes all passives and Responses to winning/losing the challenge, claim, etc. So if a character, like Eurone or Brienne, has a "while participating" effect, it lasts through passives and Responses to the challenge as well.

Serazu said:

2. First player controls Scouting Vessel and plans on winning an unopposed POW challenge. His opponent has LOW Catelyn in hand. Can the first player, in the player action window and since he gets to take the first action, pass to let his opponent put Catelyn into play and then use the Vessel's ability to nulify her STR?

The First Player always has the opportunity to play the first action in a player action window, but that does not mean they have to take it. They can pass, letting someone else go first.

But if they do that, they run a certain risk. If all the other players pass on the opportunity to take an action, that's it. The window closes. For example, let's extend your example a bit. In a 2-player game, the First Player, with Scouting Vessel, declares a power challenge with a 1-STR character. The opponent declares a 1-STR character as a defender. Now we're in the player action window before resolving challenges and the First Player decides not to trigger the Scouting Vessel to go for the unopposed challenge because he is sure his opponent will play Catelyn. So he passes on his chance to trigger a player action. His opponent, looking at the game board, decides not to trigger Catelyn and passes as well. And that's it - the players have passed consecutively, so the player action window is over. The First Player may not go backwards and say "oh, he decided not to play Catelyn after all, so I guess I'll use Scouting Vessel on the 1-STR defender and go for the unopposed."

So yeah, the First Player can pass and let his opponent put Catelyn into play, but it's something of a game of chicken, because if his opponent decides not to do anything, the opportunity to take any player action is lost to both of them.

[Serazu 50]

So, from what you say (and the FAQ mentions it, if I remember correctly), the action window closes when all players passed consecutively. This means that, in my example, if the GJ (first) player passes and the Stark player puts Catelyn into play, then the GJ may use the Vessel's ability. Of course, like you said, he runs the risk of not using the Vessel at all, if his opponent decides to pass as well. Correct?

[Staton 1]

 You are correct in all instances there.

[Serazu 50]

Many thanks to all.

[Serazu 50]

1. Concerning cards such as The Brimstone and Kraken Tattoo, if more than one card is discarded from an opponent's hand and a player's deck respectively (i.e. a lost claim 2 INT challenge in the first issue and a combination of the new Euron and Motley Crewman in the second), then each card discarded creates a separate opportunity for TB and KT to use their responses, right? So, if 2 cards are discarded, then there could be 2 responses activated in each instance. Correct?

2. A case where a claim 2 MIL challenge is lost and the losing defending player has to pick 2 of his characters to satisfy the claim: If, for instance, one unique character controlled by the defending player had two duplicates attached, then the defending player may not opt to discard both duplicates to satisfy the claim, since two different targets have to be chosen at the exact same moment. So, only one duplicate may be discarded to satisfy "half" the claim and another one character has to be picked to satisfy the other "half". Correct?

[Khudzlin 734]

Both these card say "After a card is discarded from ...", so each card creates a separate opportunity (contrast effects that say "After one or more cards are discarded from ...".

You are correct (see the Core Set rules, near the end, in the "advanced' section): you have to choose different characters for military claim (and each can be saved separately). Note that if you have only one character with a duplicate and your opponent has a claim of 2, you don't have to kill your character twice, either.

[Serazu 50]

Ok, thank you very much.

[Donnyb 0]

If the character venomous blade is attached would be killed for military claim after losing the challenge, can VB then go back into shadows?

[Khudzlin 734]

No, because VB would become moribund (discard pile) during step 4 (passives), so its response couldn't return it to shadows in step 5 (responses).

[Miklos 1]

Hi,

A question regarding Iron Fleet Raider and Corpse Lake.

Does those two working together?

It seems pretty straight forward to me - I think it is working just fine, but someone started a discussion why it is not working together.

The reasoning was:

(3.2) Paying a Cost vs. Triggering an Effect

Certain cards refer to "kneel 1 influence to..." or "pay 1 influence to..." In both cases, this is considered paying a cost.
Paying a cost with influence is not considered triggering an effect.

 

What I see here - to be exact what I do not see here - is referring to anything else than influence. And even if paying with influence is not a triggered effect, the effect itself which requires the influence cost is considered to be a Triggered effect.

 

 

[ikatowi 0]

Well, the cost payment of IFR is "discard the top card of your deck..." and the effect is "...to give IFR -2 STR until the end of the phase."

The fact that your opponent is the only one who can trigger the effect means that you yourself can't modify IFR's strength.

[ktom 598]

Miklos said:

What I see here - to be exact what I do not see here - is referring to anything else than influence. And even if paying with influence is not a triggered effect, the effect itself which requires the influence cost is considered to be a Triggered effect.

The comparison to paying with influence is not really the best way of explaining the concept I think people are trying to get across. What they are trying to say is that since Corpse Lake says "Response: After a triggered effect discards 1 or more characters from the top of an opponent's deck...," its play restrictions are only met when the discard happens for the effect part of a cards ability. If it happens for the cost part, it doesn't count, the play restrictions are not met, and the ability cannot be triggered.

There is precedent for this line of thinking. For example, Hellholt Engineer has the text "Response: After an opponent kneels a location...." The rule on this card is that if an effect results in a location kneeling, the effect knelt the location, not the player. So Hellholt Engineer pretty much only works when a player chooses to kneel a location as part of a cost. This is really just the other side of the coin you are talking about with Corpse Lake - discarding a card for cost is the player choosing to discard the card, not the result of the effect. Since the effect didn't "discard" the card for cost (the player did), Corpse Lake doesn't apply.

So yeah, if you want to be consistent with the idea that there is a difference between players choosing/causing costs and cards causing the effect, Corpse Lake and Iron Fleet Raiders do not combo, the same way that if an opponent uses Theon's ability to kneel a location, Hellholt Engineer cannot Respond. Corpse Lake only works when a card is discarded as the effect part of an effect/ability, not the cost.

 

[Miklos 1]

ktom said:

Miklos said:

What I see here - to be exact what I do not see here - is referring to anything else than influence. And even if paying with influence is not a triggered effect, the effect itself which requires the influence cost is considered to be a Triggered effect.

The comparison to paying with influence is not really the best way of explaining the concept I think people are trying to get across. What they are trying to say is that since Corpse Lake says "Response: After a triggered effect discards 1 or more characters from the top of an opponent's deck...," its play restrictions are only met when the discard happens for the effect part of a cards ability. If it happens for the cost part, it doesn't count, the play restrictions are not met, and the ability cannot be triggered.

 

There is precedent for this line of thinking. For example, Hellholt Engineer has the text "Response: After an opponent kneels a location...." The rule on this card is that if an effect results in a location kneeling, the effect knelt the location, not the player. So Hellholt Engineer pretty much only works when a player chooses to kneel a location as part of a cost. This is really just the other side of the coin you are talking about with Corpse Lake - discarding a card for cost is the player choosing to discard the card, not the result of the effect. Since the effect didn't "discard" the card for cost (the player did), Corpse Lake doesn't apply.

So yeah, if you want to be consistent with the idea that there is a difference between players choosing/causing costs and cards causing the effect, Corpse Lake and Iron Fleet Raiders do not combo, the same way that if an opponent uses Theon's ability to kneel a location, Hellholt Engineer cannot Respond. Corpse Lake only works when a card is discarded as the effect part of an effect/ability, not the cost.

 

 

Is there an official ruling for this at the moment?