"Limit once per __" Events and Paper Shield

[Stasis 0]

How do events that are limited to once per challenge or phase work with Paper Shield?

Does the fact that it wasn't able to resolve allow you to play another copy from your hand? Or is it still considered to have been used and therefore you are not able to use it again that phase or challenge? 

I read the line in the FAQ:

"(3.4) Paying For Cancelled Effects
Effects that are canceled are still considered
to have been played. Only the effects are
canceled. Costs have still been paid, and any
target is still chosen."

I'm not sure that directly applies so I figured I'd ask here.

 

[ktom 598]

As far as I know, limits are play restrictions. As such, they are part of initiation and would be counted (like cost and target) whether the effect is canceled or not.

 

[Maester_LUke 0]

ktom said:

As far as I know, limits are play restrictions. As such, they are part of initiation and would be counted (like cost and target) whether the effect is canceled or not.

 

Asked Damon this question yesterday, and as formatted, they are part of the effect, and therefore cancelled.  So you can play that second copy of Die by the Sword if the first is stopped.  But it will likely be addressed more completely in the FAQ.

[FATMOUSE 0]

Maester_LUke said:

 

ktom said:

 

As far as I know, limits are play restrictions. As such, they are part of initiation and would be counted (like cost and target) whether the effect is canceled or not.

 

 

 

Asked Damon this question yesterday, and as formatted, they are part of the effect, and therefore cancelled.  So you can play that second copy of Die by the Sword if the first is stopped.  But it will likely be addressed more completely in the FAQ.

 

 

If that's what Damon said and how they should be treated, then that would be a reversal and contradiction of what the current rules and FAQ tells us.

Take for instance Limited Responses:

"...each player cannot trigger more than one 'Limited Response:' per round." 

When a Limited Response is triggered, it's considered triggered regardless whether or not its effects  are executed, or in other words: canceled or not canceled.  Were a canceled response never considered triggered because it's canceled, the player would immediately be able to trigger the same response again.  Why?  Because you are allowed to use one response per trigger, and you were just told you didn't trigger anything.

Furthermore, as ktom stated, limits on events are part of their play restriction.  It's in the FAQ under Events Cards: Play Restrictions and states:

...'limit 1 per phase' (the card can only be played once per phase... 

In order to trigger an event effect a player must play that event.  Again, regardless of whether or not it is canceled the effect is considered to be triggered and the event is considered to have been played.  If not, you'd get odd consequences such as being able to "play" more than one card during Fear of Winter (a canceled event, would mean that you never played a card from hand...even though you did )

Last but not least, the Action Window in Detail says in part f) of Step 1 you, "Marshal the card, or trigger the effect." 

My point is, either Damon accidentally made an incorrect ruling, there was a misunderstanding, or a lot of of rules are going to have to be changed 

[ktom 598]

FATMOUSE said:

Maester_LUke said:

 

ktom said:

As far as I know, limits are play restrictions. As such, they are part of initiation and would be counted (like cost and target) whether the effect is canceled or not.

Asked Damon this question yesterday, and as formatted, they are part of the effect, and therefore cancelled.  So you can play that second copy of Die by the Sword if the first is stopped.  But it will likely be addressed more completely in the FAQ.

My point is, either Damon accidentally made an incorrect ruling, there was a misunderstanding, or a lot of of rules are going to have to be changed 

I talked to Damon about this as well. FFG was working through the pros and cons of both interpretations. My understanding is that Narrow Escape tipped the scales toward the "play restriction" interpretation - but we should know for sure in the next FAQ. In the meantime, my personal understanding and experience is that most people follow the "play restriction" interpretation.