Replacement Effects

[oshi2 0]

I had gone through the FAQ, and through the forums. and I cant find anything for or against this notion that i got from somewhere... I might have dreamt it up...

Lets use Bronn as an example. When a character would be killed, stand bronn instead.

For some reason, i got the idea that the character is still considered to be successfully killed, only something else happens instead during resolution (Bron stood). Thus I thought Anguy would be able to respond (provided it is controlled by an opponent).

The question comes from someone asking about "Stay of Execution" and "Rhaegar Targaryen", Again I forget where i got this notion from. But it leads me to believe that Rhaegar could still trigger despite now being Morribund:Returned to hand.

[ktom 598]

The difficulty you may be having is that there are two different kinds of replacement effects.

The first type, which is far more common, is one that modifies how a particular effect resolves without stopping it from resolving. You usually see this with cards entering the moribund state. For example, Stay of Execution. The character is still killed, it just enters the "moribund:return to hand" state instead of the "moribund:dead pile" state. But since the kill effect is still what resolved and knocked the character out of play, the Responses are still to the character being killed. Another example is Pyat Pree. His claim replacement effect changes the way that claim resolves, but it is still the framework "challenge result is implemented" effect that is resolving. This has a big impact for things that are immune to character abilities. You can recognize this type of replacement effect because the wording is "If X would happen, do Y instead."

The second type is far less common. In that one, the entire effect is replaced. A total replacement. Bronn is the typical example for this kind of replacement effect. With Bronn, he stands instead of the chosen character being killed. No kill effect ever resolved (as evidenced by the fact that nothing left play). The end result is that you Respond to Bronn standing, not to the character being killed. You can recognize this type of replacement effect because the wording is :If X would happen, do Y instead of doing X."

 

Hope that helps.

 

[Saturnine 47]

 Why would Stay of Execution be different from Bronn with regard to the scope of the replacement? They have the same wording, basically: "if X would be killed."

[ktom 598]

Stay of Execution: "If a King or Queen character would be killed, instead return it to its owner's hand."

Bronn: "Until the end of the phase, if that character would be killed and Bronn is kneeling, stand Bronn instead of killing that character."

See the difference? Bronn's ability specifically says that the kill never happens by saying to stand him "instead of killing" the character. Stay of Execution does not do this. Without specifically saying that returning to hand happens "instead of killing," the killed card that would go to the dead pile goes back to hand "instead."

It isn't the "would be killed" that's important here. It's the difference between "instead" and "instead of (whatever)."

 

 

[Saturnine 47]

ktom said:

 

See the difference? 

 

 

 

No. Yes, the wording differs slightly, but I don't believe this denotes a functional difference (think "reduce" and "lower"). The fact is that the "instead do X" still replaces something, and the subjunctive of "would be killed" to me indicates that the (whole) kill effect is replaced, not just the moribund destination. Contrast that with The Hound: "If The Hound is killed, place him in your discard pile instead of your dead pile." Here the effect clearly replaces not the kill effect, but the destination of the card when it enters the moribund state.

[Bomb 66]

Saturnine said:

No. Yes, the wording differs slightly, but I don't believe this denotes a functional difference (think "reduce" and "lower"). The fact is that the "instead do X" still replaces something, and the subjunctive of "would be killed" to me indicates that the (whole) kill effect is replaced, not just the moribund destination. Contrast that with The Hound: "If The Hound is killed, place him in your discard pile instead of your dead pile." Here the effect clearly replaces not the kill effect, but the destination of the card when it enters the moribund state.

I agree.  The "would be killed" is the key.  If it said "If a king or queen character is killed, instead return it to its owner's hand." then the kill effect has to have taken place. 

If I go to a store and buy a box of cereal and the promotion said "If you would buy Cereal A for $5, instead buy Cereal A for $3." that doesn't mean I have to buy Cereal A for $5 and then buy Cereal A again for $3 but in return get $5 back for the original purchase.  It means, "Oh wait, instead of paying $5 for Cereal A, I pay $3."

"If you would stop at a red light, instead keep driving." You can't keep driving if you stopped at the red light which means you didn't keep driving instead of stopping.

[Rogue30 60]

Saturnine said:

ktom said:

 

See the difference? 

 

 

 

No.

Don't worry. That's part of the secret knowledge you should know, but for some reason it will never be in FAQ.

[Saturnine 47]

 So Nate echoed what ktom said. I let him know what I thought of that, but anyhow, this is apparently how it works. *sigh*

[Bomb 66]

I don't like the way this plot is written then.

This leads me to a question.   Is "If X would be killed then do y" enforced if the King or Queen character is saved?  I'd think yes because of "would be killed" since it isn't read as "is killed".  Just curious because some of the grammar on the cards in this game is killing my brain.

[schrecklich 0]

 Wow.  As far as English is concerned, there is no difference in meaning between the text on Bronn and that on Stay of Execution.

[Saturnine 47]

Bomb said:

I don't like the way this plot is written then.

This leads me to a question.   Is "If X would be killed then do y" enforced if the King or Queen character is saved?  I'd think yes because of "would be killed" since it isn't read as "is killed".  Just curious because some of the grammar on the cards in this game is killing my brain.

No, because a save interrupts the kill effect and prevents it from being successful, thus the character never "would be killed."

[Bomb 66]

Saturnine said:

 

No, because a save interrupts the kill effect and prevents it from being successful, thus the character never "would be killed."

Are save effects not considered "If a character would be killed, save them."?  I'm simply trying to understand.  I know you can cancel them like as if they were Response effects, and am just trying to understand what the response is.

[Saturnine 47]

Bomb said:

Saturnine said:

 

 

No, because a save interrupts the kill effect and prevents it from being successful, thus the character never "would be killed."

 

 

Are save effects not considered "If a character would be killed, save them."?  I'm simply trying to understand.  I know you can cancel them like as if they were Response effects, and am just trying to understand what the response is.

Replacement effects are functionally different from a save or cancel response. A save/cancel interrupts the resolution of an effect in step 2 of the corresponding action window. The replacement effect does not interrupt anything; instead it acts at the moment the effect resolves successfully (in step 3 of the action window). There it either replaces the effect or changes the the destination of a card when it becomes moribund (and not after the card becomes moribund, but as the card becomes moribund). So in order for the replacement effect to kick in, the initial effect needs to get to that point in the timing structure, which a save or cancel would prevent.

[oshi2 0]

Rogue30 said:

Don't worry. That's part of the secret knowledge you should know, but for some reason it will never be in FAQ.

+1

 

[oshi2 0]

Would I be right in saying "Stalwart" is similar to Bron in being a "total replacement" because of the "instead of" wording. and thus CS Joffrey would not be able to respond to CS Eddard Stark being killed. 

EDIT: Wait... i think i got it.... Even though it is a "total replacement" it is only replacing subsection of the "killed" resolution. that is, where the moribund:killed character is sent.

Side question: Is stalwart mandatory?

[Saturnine 47]

oshi said:

Would I be right in saying "Stalwart" is similar to Bron in being a "total replacement" because of the "instead of" wording. and thus CS Joffrey would not be able to respond to CS Eddard Stark being killed. 

Side question: Is stalwart mandatory?

 

The wording of Stalwart is very clear. "When a card with the 'Stalwart' keyword is killed or discarded from play, it is placed on the top of its owner's deck instead of being placed in the dead or discard pile." So it only replaces the card's destination, not the effect that made it moribund.

And yes, it's mandatory.

[ktom 598]

oshi said:

EDIT: Wait... i think i got it.... Even though it is a "total replacement" it is only replacing subsection of the "killed" resolution. that is, where the moribund:killed character is sent.

It isn't a "total replacement." It is a very specific replacement of just the moribund state the card enters. Saturnine quotes the rules text.

 

Remember, the total replacement is "If X would happen, do Y instead of doing X"  and the moribund replacement is "If X would happen, do Y instead." Stalwart is phrased as "If X would happen (and it is assumed X usually results in the moribund state of Z), do Y instead of doing Z." So not really the same as the total replacement like Bronn. 

oshi said:

Side question: Is stalwart mandatory?

It's a passive effect, so it is not optional. No passive effect is optional - although some do carry an optional element to their resolution. A good example of that is Stealth. If you have attacking characters with Stealth, Stealth will always initiate. But since the rules for Stealth specify that you "may" choose a character that cannot defend, you have some choice in how it resolves - potentially leading to no practical resolution at all. So Stalwart, as a passive, will always initiate - and since it does not use the word "may," you have no say in the final resolution.

 

[WWDrakey 5]

With the new Griff this thread got quite relevant again...

How does an illegal replacement effect work? Does the original effect happen instead?

With Griff I can see this meaning that he goes to the dead pile if you have an agenda already (since the effect states "your ONLY agenda"), but is this correct? The only option I could see is trying to attach him to agenda, but failing and then he gets discarded instead...

of course he could just get lost in limbo (dead but no place to go) instead.

Another example for this would be Pyat Pree attacking a player with intrigue, when he has no characters... tried searching for any discussion on this, but didn't find any.

[ktom 598]

WWDrakey said:

How does an illegal replacement effect work? Does the original effect happen instead?

Yes. If a replacement effect is illegal for whatever reason, it doesn't apply and whatever it would be replacing just happens as it normally would have. If you have an Agenda and Griff is killed - he dies.

While not worded particularly well, this is more of a play restriction not being met than an illegal replacement effect.

WWDrakey said:

Another example for this would be Pyat Pree attacking a player with intrigue, when he has no characters... tried searching for any discussion on this, but didn't find any.

This isn't an example of an illegal replacement effect. The replacement effect happens just fine. When Pyat Pree attacks alone, whatever the claim would be is replaced by the attacking player getting to choose and kill a character. The change in claim (ie, replacement) has nothing to do with whether or not the defender has any characters on the board. Since the claim change is not dependent on that, it happens anyway. When the new claim goes to resolve...that's when your situation runs into "trouble." Of course, it's no more trouble than winning a military challenge when the opponent has no characters.

[Ratatoskr 34]

Sorry for the thread-necromancy, but it's either that or create a new one, and I'm all for keeping relevant information in one place.

FAQ 3.21 page 9 tells us:

"Replacement effects are passive effects that
change a part of the framework of the game."

Can you confirm that this is nonsense, please? Replacement effects cannot be passives, they have to be conditional constants, right? Whenever X is true, do Y instead. Otherwise, how would stuff like Pyat Pree work (see this thread)?

After all, the next sentence in the quoted paragraph is:

"Some of them apply to a card's destination as
it reaches a moribund state" (emphasis mine).

That says right there that the replacement effect kicks in in step 3 of the action window, not in step 4.

So, can we all agree upon that replacement effects are actually constant effects, not passives, and that the FAQ passage in question is one of those instances where FAQ entries (especially older ones) are not worded as precisely as we'd all wish for?

[ktom 598]

Yes. The self-contradictory nature of that particular entry has long been recognized.

It's a good illustration of how difficult it can be to tell the difference between a passive effect and a constant effect with a condition, though. Even FFG screws it up sometimes.