hellholt engineer + attack from the sea

[criticalhitgames2 0]

1) Can engineer have multiple responses to a single at the same kneeling effect (a la Anguy the Archer) or is he limited to responding to one mass effect.

2) Does this even work? Since it is your plot you must resolve the effect first correct?

 

hopefully there is an easy answer and I'm just missing it somewhere.

[ktom 598]

Gotta be careful on this. It's a little confusing.

clu said:

1) Can engineer have multiple responses to a single at the same kneeling effect (a la Anguy the Archer) or is he limited to responding to one mass effect.

If multiple locations are knelt at the same time, you would have multiple Response triggers.

 

However...

clu said:

2) Does this even work? Since it is your plot you must resolve the effect first correct?

You are missing something big here. The text on Hellholt Engineer is:

 

"Response: After an opponent kneels a location, choose and stand a location you control."

Now, compare that to something like Anguy ("Response: After an opponent's character is killed, Anguy the Archer claims 1 power (limit 3 per phase).") or the Chain attachments ("Response: After attached character kneels...") to Hellholt Engineer. In those cases, you don't care how the character is killed or knelt, only what the end result is. But when Hellholt Engineer says "after an opponent kneels a location...," you do care how the location is knelt. It must be knelt by an opponent.

Not knelt by an opponent's effect. Not knelt as a passive result of something an opponent did. Specifically knelt by an opponent. When your Greyjoy opponent uses Theon Greyjoy's effect, they are not technically kneeling a location. They are triggering Theon's character ability. You could Respond to a location being knelt, but that's not the same thing.

So when your opponent reveals Attack from the Sea, there would be multiple Response opportunities for "after a location is knelt," but there would only be one Response opportunity to "after an opponent reveals a plot card." Hellholt Engineer is not applicable.

 

Where you get to use Hellholt Engineer primarily is when an opponent kneels a location as a cost of something. In those cases, it is the opponent kneeling the location, not an effect resulting in the location being knelt. So when your Greyjoy opponent kneels Longship Iron Victory to pay the cost of its location effect, Hellholt Engineer has something to Respond to. If your Targaryen opponent kneels 3 copies of Eastern Fiefdom in order to pay the influence cost The Hatchling's Feast, Hellholt Engineer would have 3 separate things to Respond to.

Hope that makes sense. It is a little confusing because, to my knowledge, this is the first card we have that Responds almost exclusively to the way an opponent pays costs instead of also Responding to the results of an opponent's effects.

 

 

[criticalhitgames2 0]

That makes complete sense. Thanks KTom!

[Rogue30 60]

What about cards like Lost Spearman?

After you play Lost Spearman from your hand, any opponent may kneel 1 influence to return him to your hand.

Does it count as kneeling location?

[ktom 598]

Rogue30 said:

What about cards like Lost Spearman?

 

After you play Lost Spearman from your hand, any opponent may kneel 1 influence to return him to your hand.

Does it count as kneeling location?

Yes (assuming its an influence location). The effect itself may or may not result in a knelt location. The opponent has to actually choose to kneel the location as part of the effect's resolution before the location is actually knelt. (Do not confuse that with the opponent choosing which location kneels as the result of an effect.)

 

Cost is the primary way you'll know that the opponent knelt the location (and returning Lost Spearman to hand by kneeling an influence is a cost of sorts), but there may be other ways. You look for the "one-step" process. A two-step process (player triggers effect, resolution of effect results in knelt location) or a three-step process (player chooses to reveal plot, plot 'when revealed' text initiates, plot text resolution results in knelt location) does not work.

Maybe the better way to say it is that Hellholt Engineer can only Respond when an opponent directly changes the status of a location from "standing" to "kneeling" - usually in order to do something. He cannot Respond when the player's direct involvement is to trigger an effect or play a card, which in turn acts on the location to change its standing/kneeling status.

[schrecklich 0]

 Hmm, unless there is some effect that makes a location a character at the same time and then you kneel that location/character to attack or defend in a challenge, I don't see any way for a player to kneel a location outside of paying for a cost if you treat all abilities that kneel a location as being done by the card with that ability rather than by the player.

[Bomb 66]

"After an opponent kneels a location..."

I'd think that an effect or an ability that the opponent played that kneels any players location would count as well.

For example -

Theon Greyjoy

Any Phase: Pay 1 gold to choose and kneel a location (limit once per round).

 

If another opponent chooses to kneel one of my locations, then that is an opponent kneeling a location.

 

Honestly, I understand that there are times where there are clear distinctions in the card text, but the "After an opponent kneels a location..." sentence can be interpreted as being as open ended as it reads.  Considering how clear the condition is on several cards like it, you'd think this one would tell exactly how narrow it is meant to be.  "After an opponent kneels a location that is used to pay for an ability..." or something along those lines would be more appropriate based on what is being discussed in this thread.

Maybe I'm wrong about the intent of the card and there is something in the FAQ that says otherwise, but it does not say "After an opponent kneels a location they control..." which leads me to believe it is more open ended than not.

[ktom 598]

Bomb said:

If another opponent chooses to kneel one of my locations, then that is an opponent kneeling a location.

Nope. We've had this discussion many, many times in relation to the scope of immunity.

Think about Game of Cyvasse, which says "Each player must choose and kneel a character with an INT icon he or she controls, if able." What is kneeling the character, the player or the event? It's very important, because if it is the player who chooses the character doing the kneeling, an "immune to events" character could be chosen and knelt (since it is not "immune to players" and thus not covered in the scope of the card's "immune to events"). But if it is the event doing the kneeling, we are within the scope of immunity here are the character cannot be chosen/knelt when Cyvasse is played. 

To add more confusion to it, take something like the plot Drunken Allegations ("When revealed, choose an opponent. Then, you and that opponent must each choose and kneel a standing character"). Who knelt the characters? The player who chose the individual character, or the player who revealed the plot and chose the opponent? We cut through that kind of ambiguity by saying the plot kneels the characters, not the players doing the choosing.

The ruling has come, many times, that the actual kneeling is done by the effect, not the player doing the choosing when the event is resolved - and thus not by the player playing the event, either. Take this reasoning from the scope of immunity forward and you get that when an opponent triggers a character ability like Theon's (Any Phase: Pay 1 gold to choose and kneel a location), it is the character ability that is considered to kneel that location, not the player triggering it or choosing the location.

Bomb said:

Honestly, I understand that there are times where there are clear distinctions in the card text, but the "After an opponent kneels a location..." sentence can be interpreted as being as open ended as it reads.  Considering how clear the condition is on several cards like it, you'd think this one would tell exactly how narrow it is meant to be.

Ah, but all those "cards like it" are worded differently. Why not use the same wording as on those cards if it is supposed to be the same? Regardless of "intent," the fact that the wording is different - and not equivalent - means that the situation is different. Short of "house rulings," you have to play what is written, not what you think the designers "intended".

 

Bomb said:

Maybe I'm wrong about the intent of the card and there is something in the FAQ that says otherwise, but it does not say "After an opponent kneels a location they control..." which leads me to believe it is more open ended than not.

Consider the text on something like Steelshanks Walton or Lost Spearman that specifies "any player/opponent may...". So the interpretation that the play restriction here is most often satisfied when a player kneels a location to pay a cost is not necessarily the same as "after an opponent kneels a location they control."

[Bomb 66]

Thank you for the reply kotm.

Can you give me an example of when a player kneels a location that is not through the effects of an ability?

I can't think of anything that would kneel a location that wouldn't be because of an ability or event.  That being said, how would paying the cost of an ability or event by kneeling a card, not be considered caused by that ability or event?

And the text on those other cards is not equal.  That is not what I was trying to say.  I was trying to say that if text is going to be put on cards to narrow the criteria needed to trigger the ability, then there shouldn't be such open ended interpreted text on this card.  They could have easily put "knelt to pay the cost of an ability." or something along those lines and avoided any misinterpretation by anyone.  It's a narrow enough criteria is it not?

[Saturnine 47]

Bomb said:

I can't think of anything that would kneel a location that wouldn't be because of an ability or event.  That being said, how would paying the cost of an ability or event by kneeling a card, not be considered caused by that ability or event?

Paying the cost is part of initiating the ability, it's not the effect of the ability.

[ktom 598]

Bomb said:

Can you give me an example of when a player kneels a location that is not through the effects of an ability?

I can't think of anything that would kneel a location that wouldn't be because of an ability or event.  That being said, how would paying the cost of an ability or event by kneeling a card, not be considered caused by that ability or event?

As Saturnine says, paying the cost of an effect or ability would not be considered to be caused by the event. We see this in the scope of immunity as well.

Lets say I have a kneeling Stark Lord out, plus the character Shaggydog (immune to events because of the Lord) and Edmure's Host (also immune to events) standing. Can I kneel those two "immune to events" characters to pay the cost of Lethal Counterattack? If the event were considered to be kneeling the characters that are used to pay its cost, then these "immune to event" characters could not be used. But the FAQ tells us that immunity does not extend to costs, etc. This tells us that it is not the event doing the actual kneeling of the characters knelt to pay its cost. If anything, kneeling the characters causes the event to happen, not the other way around.

So it's looking like a good rule of thumb that if a location could have been immune to being knelt in whatever way it was knelt, Hellholt Engineer has nothing to Respond to. If not, that's when the Engineer can Respond.

Another way to look at it: all player-driven situations really come down to "a player does X, so Y happens." If X is "kneels a location," Hellholt Engineer has something to Respond to. If Y is "kneels a location," it does not.

(The more advanced "Narrow Escape" situation is essentially "a player does X, so Y happens unless another player does Z." In that situation, if either X or Z is "kneels a location," Hellholt Engineer can Respond.)

[Mathias Fricot 0]

I understand your whole "scope of immunity" discussion, but what I don't understand is why it is so relevant to the engineer.

"After your opponent kneels a location" should cover "After your opponent kneels a location through Theon Greyjoy" because that is more inclusive, shouldn't it?

I know your saying because Theon Greyjoy's ability is the card kneeling a location, the player choosing the target, and since the card causing the effect is not "the opponent" it does not trigger the engineer. Of course, any "cost" is exempt from the "scope of immunity" so any time you make a choice to kneel a location to pay for a cost, be it a fiefdom or longship iron victory, the player is kneeling the location, so that would trigger the engineer.

What it should say is "after your opponent kneels a location to pay for a cost." I can't think of any other time when its going to be the "player" doing the location kneeling.

[Saturnine 47]

Mathias Fricot said:

What it should say is "after your opponent kneels a location to pay for a cost." I can't think of any other time when its going to be the "player" doing the location kneeling.

So if "after an opponent kneels a location" and "after your opponent kneels a location to pay for a cost" are equivalent, why not go for the short version. Saves some space on the card

Besides, your more specific version might not cover all situations that the Engineer can trigger off.

I wonder, if we had a hypothatical location called Kneelers Cove with the text: "Any Phase: Kneel Kneelers Cove." Would this be a valid trigger for the Engineer?

[Bomb 66]

Saturnine said:

Mathias Fricot said:

I wonder, if we had a hypothatical location called Kneelers Cove with the text: "Any Phase: Kneel Kneelers Cove." Would this be a valid trigger for the Engineer?

I don't have a clue because based on some of this discussion.  I'd assume if it powered it's ability then it would be considered paying a cost for it.  If we say that because it's an opponents option to kneel it, then it should count as well.

I feel like I'm back at RPI in my Intermediate Logic classes, but this is harder because I need to look elsewhere for the context of the text.

[ktom 598]

Saturnine said:

I wonder, if we had a hypothatical location called Kneelers Cove with the text: "Any Phase: Kneel Kneelers Cove." Would this be a valid trigger for the Engineer?

I could argue it in a bunch of different ways that would ultimately not be helpful. An interesting logic problem, though. Probably better to take that discussion off-line.

[ktom 598]

Mathias Fricot said:

I understand your whole "scope of immunity" discussion, but what I don't understand is why it is so relevant to the engineer.

The relevance of the discussion is that it is the place in the game that has the most developed reasoning for when an effect, rather than a player, is thought to be "doing" something, as well as for when something effects a card, a player, a rule, etc. If you accept that there is a difference between "when an opponent kneels a location" and "when a location is knelt because of something controlled by an opponent," it is very informative.

Mathias Fricot said:

"After your opponent kneels a location" should cover "After your opponent kneels a location through Theon Greyjoy" because that is more inclusive, shouldn't it?

I'd argue that they are not related, per se. Both are different ways to achieve the same results. An opponent kneeling a location directly, and a location being knelt indirectly by something an opponent sets into motion are not the same, and one is not inclusive of the other. The results are the same - and a location ends up knelt - though. I liken it to "play" and "put into play." They are different, and one is not inclusive of the other, but both result in a card "coming into play."

Mathias Fricot said:

What it should say is "after your opponent kneels a location to pay for a cost." I can't think of any other time when its going to be the "player" doing the location kneeling.

What if a card said something like "While this card is in play, you automatically win Dominance unless an opponent kneels a Stronghold location." That, like the Lost Spearman example, is a player kneeling a location. But is it paying a cost? There may be non-cost opportunities to kneel locations.

[ktom 598]

Bomb said:

I feel like I'm back at RPI in my Intermediate Logic classes, but this is harder because I need to look elsewhere for the context of the text.

Heh. And this isn't even one of the more difficult logic questions that can be created in this game. We are "rules philosophers" around here!

[Mathias Fricot 0]

I don't think you can have an umbrella condition like "when an opponent kneels a location" that does not encompass "when an opponent kneels a location through Theon Greyjoy" because as long as you use Theon Greyjoy to kneel a location, a location is being knelt. Like a number set within a number set. That was what I was trying to point out, ktom. Just a little mathematics.

Saturnine, I would say the value of adding the three words is that you don't have to have this thread. Someone could easily argue that any effect has to go through the opponent, otherwise how are the cards moving on the table. That is a little farfetched, obviously. "Choose and kneel a location" has a net result of a location of your choosing being knelt. Is Theon triggering his response, or is the player triggering Theon's response, or is the player letting Theon trigger his own response? Is the player choosing and kneeling the location, or is the player choosing the location and Theon kneeling it, or is the player letting Theon choose the location and then kneel it? What do you consider your opponent to have done vs what the card has done?

Look at Informed Acolyte; when is your "opponent" drawing a card outside the draw phase? Wouldn't the same extension of immunity have to apply in that situation? I'll let you tap one U to cast Ponder. Just kidding, I Spell Pierced.

[ktom 598]

Mathias Fricot said:

Look at Informed Acolyte; when is your "opponent" drawing a card outside the draw phase? Wouldn't the same extension of immunity have to apply in that situation? I'll let you tap one U to cast Ponder. Just kidding, I Spell Pierced.

The difference is in the effects. All those draw effects say "that player draws a card" or "you draw a card." So the result is that the effect points at a player and says "you there, player; draw a card!" So the effect does not do the drawing; it instructs the player to draw the card. That is why we see Responses to "effects that allow players to draw one or more cards" as well as simply drawing cards.

That is not the case with effects that kneel locations. The result of those effects is essentially that the effect points to a location and says "you there, location; kneel!" So the effect does the actual kneeling. 

The nature of "draw" and "kneel" makes these two play restrictions different.

 

The problem with your number set within a number set comparison is that while A may always contain B, all instances of B do not necessarily have to be a part of a corresponding A. Hence, you cannot equate the occurrence of B with the occurrence of A. It's the age old "assume all birds can fly; airplanes can fly, therefore, airplanes are birds" logical fallacy. 

Let's say I tell A that each time he makes a sandwich, I'll pay him $5. A goes out and gets B to make a sandwich for him. Do I owe A $5 for the sandwich B made? By your reasoning, shouldn't "when A makes a sandwich through B" be encompassed by the umbrella condition I created by saying "when A makes a sandwich"? Or is getting B to make a sandwich for him significantly different from making the sandwich himself?

[Mathias Fricot 0]

im saying all natural numbers are integers.

"after an opponent draws a card" and "draw a card through a card effect" should follow the same reasoning that your applying through immunity. Stannis (KotS) says "Players cannot draw cards through card effects," a little like kneeling a location through Theon Greyjoy. The reasoning of "drawing and kneeling dont follow the same rules because drawing isn't kneeling" is just as weak as me saying immunity shouldnt explain kneeling because immunity isnt kneeling. I agree with your initial conclusion ktom, I am just saying if we apply that "scope" everywhere - like card draw - your going to run into problems. Maybe im the only one seeing this. 
 

[Maester_LUke 0]

ktom said:

The problem with your number set within a number set comparison is that while A may always contain B, all instances of B do not necessarily have to be a part of a corresponding A. Hence, you cannot equate the occurrence of B with the occurrence of A. It's the age old "assume all birds can fly; airplanes can fly, therefore, airplanes are birds" logical fallacy. 

Let's say I tell A that each time he makes a sandwich, I'll pay him $5. A goes out and gets B to make a sandwich for him. Do I owe A $5 for the sandwich B made? By your reasoning, shouldn't "when A makes a sandwich through B" be encompassed by the umbrella condition I created by saying "when A makes a sandwich"? Or is getting B to make a sandwich for him significantly different from making the sandwich himself?

I get the A & B sandwich example, but in your above case, if you've stated that "A may always contain B"  the yes, all instances of B _do_ necessarily have to be a part of a corresponding A.  That's the definition of "contain."  Now, if the "may" does not hold in a specific example, then there's no basis on which to make the further assertions.  Your bird and airplane construction does not hold as an example of that, it illustrates a different fallacy, one of sweeping generalization.  "All birds can fly, penguins are birds, therefore penguins can fly" just proves that the statement "all birds can fly" isn't accurate.  The birds and airplanes are subsets of flying things, and while making those two assertions, you do not preclude overlap, but neither do you confirm it.

[Rogue30 60]

ktom said:

"While this card is in play, you automatically win Dominance unless an opponent kneels a Stronghold location."

Seriously though, I would like this in FAQ, because even if I accept ktom's answer, this thing will be often missed by players. And there is always possibility that designers wanted to work this differently.

[ktom 598]

Maester_LUke said:

if you've stated that "A may always contain B"  the yes, all instances of B _do_ necessarily have to be a part of a corresponding A.

Really? In (American) football, all "sacks" are tackles. (A, the sack, contains B, the tackle.) But not every tackle on the field (B) is part of a corresponding sack (A).

The point I'm trying to make here is that "after a location is knelt" is more inclusive than "after a player kneels a location." A location can be knelt without being knelt by a player. They are not equivalent and the text on Hellholt Engineer is the less inclusive (eg, the "sack," not the tackle) of the two.

[Maester_LUke 0]

ktom said:

Maester_LUke said:

if you've stated that "A may always contain B"  the yes, all instances of B _do_ necessarily have to be a part of a corresponding A.

Really? In (American) football, all "sacks" are tackles. (A, the sack, contains B, the tackle.) But not every tackle on the field (B) is part of a corresponding sack (A).
The point I'm trying to make here is that "after a location is knelt" is more inclusive than "after a player kneels a location." A location can be knelt without being knelt by a player. They are not equivalent and the text on Hellholt Engineer is the less inclusive (eg, the "sack," not the tackle) of the two.

 

Well, your sack/tackle example is inverted, tackles "contain" sacks (sacks is the subset). The two should be reversed, or worded as "A contain_ed in_ B." I wasn't contending that the bird & airplane example wasn't an accurate case of a fallacy, just that it wasn't then A/B relationship you'd posited.

I guess I'm with Mathias on this situation. I see locations knelt as a cost (by you), and as an effect (by you and your opponent). I read your explanation in the original response:

>>>"Response: After an opponent kneels a location, choose and stand a location you control."
Now, compare that to something like Anguy ("Response: After an opponent's character is killed, Anguy the Archer claims 1 power (limit 3 per phase).") or the Chain attachments ("Response: After attached character kneels...") to Hellholt Engineer. In those cases, you don't care how the character is killed or knelt, only what the end result is. But when Hellholt Engineer says "after an opponent kneels a location...," you do care how the location is knelt. It must be knelt by an opponent.

Not knelt by an opponent's effect. Not knelt as a passive result of something an opponent did. Specifically knelt by an opponent. When your Greyjoy opponent uses Theon Greyjoy's effect, they are not technically kneeling a location. They are triggering Theon's character ability. You could Respond to a location being knelt, but that's not the same thing.

So when your opponent reveals Attack from the Sea, there would be multiple Response opportunities for "after a location is knelt," but there would only be one Response opportunity to "after an opponent reveals a plot card." Hellholt Engineer is not applicable.<<<

I guess I'm confused how the verbage on a Chain differs. Seems to me that "CARDNAME kneels" has to subsume "you kneel" and "your opponent kneels." It's either going to be from a cost (the controlling player) or an effect (from either controller or opponent). Perhaps I don't understand how the scope of immunity parallel. I understand how cases like ToS KoF and Game of Cyvasse work; If my opponent triggers the card in that scenario, there's a response to "you kneel" and "your opponent's effect kneels." I guess i'm confused how if the cards verbiage for a cost "kneel CARDNAME to" doesn't also take credit for the kneeling in that situation. Without a card's text acting on itself (not targeting, but allowing), you can't arbitrarily kneel a card to be eligible for a response. In both cost (Street of Steel) and effect (Balon's Rebellion) the verb in the cardtext is instructing the player to do something. My opponent's Theon can no more reach out and kneel my location by "himself" than the Informed Acolyte can draw a card "to/for itself."

Again, I understand that "comes into play" subsumes both "play" and "put into play." I don't see how you aren't suggesting that "is knelt" subsumes "kneel" and "kneel" in this situation. In Joffrey TftRK's "opponent's character is knelt" covers both being knelt "by effect," for a cost, and by game rule (to attack or defend). I was surprised when I discovered this because I subconciously (mis)read the card's ability as "character is knelt (by effect, like Flogged & Chained)." Had I considered Flogged & Chained, which excluded the latter two, I would have realized I was reading a restriction where none existed.

Would I be correct under your logic in this construct?:

If Hellholt Engineer read "a player kneels a location" it would still only cover kneeling for costs (and small exceptions like the Lost Spearman).

If Hellholt Engineer read "an opponent or an opponent's effect kneels a location," that would include them triggering Theon, revealing Attack from the Sea, or playing Balon's Rebellion.

How would you word them kneeling one of my locations, but not one they controlled?: "An opponent's effect kneels one of your locations?"<

 

I guess I'm missing the convention where "kneels" doesn't subsume "kneels for cost," "for effect," and "by game rule" (or something like Along the Saltspear). Kneels for cost will obviously only include the controller, while the "for effect" would further include "by your effect" and "by your opponent's effect."

I guess I'm just muddying the waters further in hopes that they settle more clearly. I just wish we'd get clearer templating to begin with, or corrective errata, however minor, that makes things clear when people have to look this up. The game would be so much easier for n00bs if the rules philosphizing happened during design, development & playtesting rather than here. And in the imperfect world we live in, that they ruled/errata'ed for simplicity rather than continuing the framework that's perpetuated and had a straightforward collection of thes I seriously wish I had the time to compile a list of rulings on each card just to complete the database for newbies. I'd move on, but I guess I'm just a masochist.

And does the Bay of Ice not trigger the Engineer, since it's the location's passive effect doing the kneeling? (Is it correct to see no cost? Or read it as "After a player wins intiative, _do nothing_ to have that player...?")

<Looks at time> I must seriously want to avoid writing a paper.

Hellholt Engineer Text:
Ally Response: After an opponent kneels a location, choose and stand a location you control.

Attack from the Sea Text:
When revealed, kneel all locations.

Theon Greyjoy CS Text:
Lord, Ironborn. Any Phase: Pay 1 gold to choose and kneel a location (limit once per round).

Balon's Rebellion Text:
Greyjoy character only. Any Phase: Kneel a Greyjoy Lord character to choose and kneel X locations. X is the STR of the knelt character.

Street of Steel Text:
King's Landing Limit 1 per deck. Marshalling: Kneel Street of Steel to lower the cost of the next character with a icon you play this phase by 1.

Tin Link Text:
Item, Chain Setup. Maester character only. Response: After attached character kneels, choose and discard 1 non-Chain attachment from play. (Limit once per phase)

Joffrey Baratheon TftRK Text:
Lord. Immune to triggered effects. Response: After an opponent's character is knelt,pay 1 gold to stand Joffrey Baratheon. Then,he claims 1 power.

Flogged and Chained Text:
Condition Attach to a non-Army character. Response: After a character is knelt by a triggered effect,kneel attached character.

Bay of Ice Text:
Kingdom. After a player wins initiative, that player kneels all cards named Bay of Ice, then draws a card.

[ktom 598]

Maester_LUke said:

I don't see how you aren't suggesting that "is knelt" subsumes "kneel" and "kneel" in this situation.

You are misunderstanding me then. I am suggesting that "is knelt" subsumes all methods and effects that result in a kneeling card. However, I am saying that "after an opponent kneels a location" (which is equivalent to "after a location is knelt by an opponent") is different from "after a location is knelt" (the all-inclusive verbiage) or "after a location is knelt by an opponent's effect" (the one that you and Mathias are equating to "after a location is knelt by an opponent").

So, I am saying that "after a location is knelt" includes "after a location is knelt by an opponent" and "after a location is knelt by an effect controlled by an opponent." But I am also saying that "after a location is knelt by an effect controlled by an opponent" does not include "after a location is knelt by an opponent." They are two different things that are separate from each other, not inclusive in any way. That's the parallel to "comes into play," which includes "play" and "put into play," but "put into play" and "play" are completely separate and not inclusive of each other in any way.

My justification for saying "after a location is knelt by an effect controlled by an opponent" is not the same as "after a location is knelt by an opponent" is where the scope of immunity discussion comes in. If "knelt by an opponent" was included in "knelt by an effect controlled by an opponent" (as you are suggesting), then kneeling for cost would be considered part of (for example) the event effect. If kneeling for cost is considered part of the event effect, and event-immune cards ignore event effects, you would not be able to kneel the immune card for cost. Since you can kneel an immune card for cost, kneeling for cost must not be the same as (and completely separate from) kneeling with an effect controlled by that player.

 

So, for example, if I had a card that said "Challenges: Kneel a Warship location to choose and kneel a location," you'd have 1 Response opportunity for "after an opponent kneels a location," one Response opportunity for "after a location is knelt by an opponent's effect," and two Response opportunities for "after a location is knelt."

Or how about this: what if I had something like Pyat Pree that said "After you win a challenge in which (card) attacked alone, choose and kneel a location instead of the normal claim effects." What knelt that location? The player? The card effect? The claim effect? Conventional wisdom concerning replacement effects would say "the claim effect." So Hellholt Engineer wouldn't have anything to Respond to, even though a location ended up knelt as the ultimate result of a card effect controlled by the opponent (through a 3-step process; player attacks with the card, the card acts on claim, the claim does the kneeling). I'm saying that Theon is like that, with one less step (player initiates Theon, Theon resolves on location). And that 2-step process is one we use all the time in saying that immune cards can be part of initiation, but not resolution.

I'm not making judgments on what the designers were thinking when they printed Hellholt Engineer. I'm just saying that, based on the words that ended up on the card (which are admittedly unique), Hellholt Engineer is predominantly limited to locations knelt for cost.

Bay of Ice is one of those situations like the Lost Spearman. It's resolution isn't "my effect kneels the card directly;" it's resolution is "I instruct the player directly, who then kneels the location." The effect specifically says "the player kneels the location(s)," and we all know that what the effect specifically says, controls. This, btw, is the same reasoning that I was talking about earlier in Draw effects. Draw effects do not resolve as "my effect draws cards for you;" they resolve as "I instruct a player directly, who then draws cards." Note that with multiple copies of Bay of Ice out, there will be multiple opportunities for Hellholt Engineer's Response.

 

Seriously; if people are concerned about whether Hellholt Engineer only works in Response to (essentially) costs, or to anything controlled by an opponent that results in a knelt location, as FFG specifically for the clarification.