The red wedding

[Underworld40k 51]

 Could some one give me a detailed breakdown of who this plot resolves?

Our groups current understanding (much debated) is that the player to the left has to pick a lord and lady they control and then kill one for the other to gain 2 power (easy enough).

They cant select lords/ladies they dont control, but must select and kill a lord/lady if they only control 1 (ie, i have robb stark out as my only lord, and no lady so robb bites the proverbial dust)

Have we got this right or way way off mark.

[Starblayde 0]

Underworld40k said:

 

 Could some one give me a detailed breakdown of who this plot resolves?

Our groups current understanding (much debated) is that the player to the left has to pick a lord and lady they control and then kill one for the other to gain 2 power (easy enough).

They cant select lords/ladies they dont control, but must select and kill a lord/lady if they only control 1 (ie, i have robb stark out as my only lord, and no lady so robb bites the proverbial dust)

Have we got this right or way way off mark.

 

 

The thing you've got wrong there is there's no 'they control': "When revealed, the opponent to your left chooses 1 Lord and 1 Lady character, if able. Then, you must choose and kill 1 of those characters. The other claims 2 power."

The way we've always played it (insofar as what happens with only one Lord/Lady) is as you have - if there is only one Lord/Lady in play, they're getting killed - but it can be anyone's Lord (or Lady), not just the player to the left's.

[Saturnine 47]

Starblayde said:

The thing you've got wrong there is there's no 'they control': "When revealed, the opponent to your left chooses 1 Lord and 1 Lady character, if able. Then, you must choose and kill 1 of those characters. The other claims 2 power."

The way we've always played it (insofar as what happens with only one Lord/Lady) is as you have - if there is only one Lord/Lady in play, they're getting killed - but it can be anyone's Lord (or Lady), not just the player to the left's.

 

@Underworld40k: As Starblayde said, the player to the left of whoever revealed The Red Wedding chooses one Lord and one Lady character on the table; it doesn't matter who controls them. Then the player who revealed the plot gets to kill one of the characters chosen and the other chosen character claims 2 power.

 

@Starblayde: A Lord and a Lady character must be chosen for the "then" part of the effect to execute. If there is only a Lady and no Lord, or a Lord and no Lady in play, nothing happens.

[Ratatoskr 34]

Sorry, way, way off.

Here's what the plot says:

When revealed, the opponent to your left chooses 1 Lord and 1 Lady character, if able. Then, you must choose and kill 1 of those characters. The other claims 2 power.

The effect consists of two parts. First, the player to the left of the player playing TRW chooses two characters. The text of the effect doesn't specify the controller of those cards, so the choosing player may choose any characters in play, no matter if they are controlled by him or an opponent, as long as one has the Lord trait, and the other has the Lady trait.

Note that the seond part of the effect (the part after the "Then") can only resolve if the part before "Then" has resolved successfully and completely. So, if no Lord or no Lady is chosen (e.g. because there's none in play), no one dies and no one claims power.

This card has been discussed multiple times. Look here or here if you wish to delve deeper into the matter. Or use the Search function (Keyword Wedding, Search Within... Subjects should do the trick).

 

[Starblayde 0]

It's obviously the 'if able' part that has thrown us off - every other card seems to not need the 'if able' for the 'then' to trigger, so why this one?

Strange, but fair enough if that's the correct interpretation.

[Ratatoskr 34]

To be very hones, the 'if able' kinda irritated me too just now. It seems somehow pointless. I'm sure it's discussed somewhere in the plethora of threads on the card.

[ktom 598]

Starblayde said:

It's obviously the 'if able' part that has thrown us off - every other card seems to not need the 'if able' for the 'then' to trigger, so why this one?

"If able" shows up fairly frequently. The biggest reason for using it is to change a hard requirement into a soft one. Here's what I mean; say we have a hypothetical event that says:

"Challenges: Choose a King character you control. That character gets +2 STR for each Ally character in play until the end of the phase. All Ally characters get -1 STR until the end of the phase."

The natural question that will come up is "if I don't control a King character, can I still play that event to give all Ally characters -1 STR?" And the answer is that no, you can't. If an effect has a target, you cannot trigger that effect unless all targets are available. If you have no King, you cannot meet the target requirements of that event, so you cannot play it.  But what if we modified that hypothetical card to:

"Challenges: Choose a King character you control, if able. That character gets +2 STR for each Ally character in play until the end of the phase. All Ally characters get -1 STR until the end of the phase."

Now can I play that card if I have no King, just to hit all the Ally characters on the table? I sure can. The addition of "if able" changes the target restriction of needing from a hard requirement to a soft option. "No King" just means "not able," which the card allows.

 

So that is really the reason for the "if able" on Red Wedding. It is, indeed, a completely redundant phrase on the card as it resolves passively and will initiate (but not be able to resolve) when it is revealed. HOWEVER, because many people (mistakenly) think of revealing a plot as triggering the plot text - the way that playing an event triggers the event text - they might think that without a Lord and a Lady in play, they would not be allowed to reveal the plot at all, which could cause real problems at the beginning of Round 7. So the "if able" text in that situation is more about avoiding confusion than actual (necessary) functionality. It doesn't change the way the plot resolves, but it does potentially, and preemptively, answer a common source of confusion for players.

[schrecklich 0]

 Thanks, ktom, I had always wondered why the "if able" was there on The Red Wedding.

[Underworld40k 51]

 Cheers people, excellent and quick answers as always

I did try a search but must have not been looking at the right filters as i got a lot of lists that used it in plot decks but nothing on actual clarification (that said i was at work and being quick/sneaky)

[goshdarnstud 0]

 Everytime I see ths question it warms my heart.  Because a) While I accept the way the card is played, I still think it's poorly written and shouldn't work the way it does.  and b) I'm sue it annoys ktom that I bring this up everytime