Valar Morghulis vs. Threat from the North (again)

[Saturnine 47]

 I might be overthinking this or simply misremembering/misapplying things that have been discussed. But wasn't it argued in various discussions that an effect like the discard effect of Threat from the North happens passively although the strength reduction is a constant effect?

In which case the kill effect of VM would kill a strength-1 character before it would be discarded.

Thoughts?

[Khudzlin 734]

You mean Threat of the North's discard effect is a regular passive while Valar Morghulis' effect is a "when revealed" passive, making Valar's effect being applied first?

[ktom 598]

Khudzlin said:

You mean Threat of the North's discard effect is a regular passive while Valar Morghulis' effect is a "when revealed" passive, making Valar's effect being applied first?

Correct.

• The -1STR from Threat is constant, so it applies immediately upon the plot being revealed
• The "discard at 0" is technically a standard passive that doesn't kick in until Step 4 of the action window. Most of the time, this is as close to instantaneous that it makes no difference, especially given the fact that all passives are simultaneous unless they directly conflict with each other.
• However, in the plot phase, we have the only example of passives being prioritized. "When revealed" plot text comes before all other standard passive effects.

So yes, if Threat and Valar are revealed at the same time, 1-STR characters will die (at 0 STR) instead of being discarded. Good news for Viserys.

[Saturnine 47]

ktom said:

Correct.

 

• The -1STR from Threat is constant, so it applies immediately upon the plot being revealed
• The "discard at 0" is technically a standard passive that doesn't kick in until Step 4 of the action window. Most of the time, this is as close to instantaneous that it makes no difference, especially given the fact that all passives are simultaneous unless they directly conflict with each other.
• However, in the plot phase, we have the only example of passives being prioritized. "When revealed" plot text comes before all other standard passive effects.

So yes, if Threat and Valar are revealed at the same time, 1-STR characters will die (at 0 STR) instead of being discarded. Good news for Viserys.

 

I am confused because the common wisdom was that strength-1 characters are discarded by Threat from the North before they are killed by Valar (see for example: http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/edge_foros_discusion.asp?efid=18&efcid=4&efidt=482597&efpag=0#482641)

[ktom 598]

Everyone has made the mistake before, applying the "discard at 0" as a constant along with the STR reduction. Here's what it comes down to (and it is a subtle difference that people usually miss):

• Threat's text is constant. The -1 STR and the "discard at 0" condition are active from the moment the plot is revealed.
• However, if the "discard at 0" condition was applied as a constant effect, there would be no opportunity to interrupt it with a save, making the "cannot be saved" text unnecessary and flying in the face of how we understand terminal effects to work (as difficult as it is to save from them, you are given the chance to).
• So while the "discard at 0" condition is created from the moment the plot is revealed, the resolution of that condition comes as a passive effect.

Most of the time, because the difference between condition and resolution is pretty much simultaneous in all other situations, people naturally apply (and resolve) the discard immediately. I know I have. But looking at the timing more closely, the technically correct way to do it is as a standard passive -- after the "when revealed" passives in the plot phase.

Again, 98% of the time, applying the "discard at 0" as a standard passive effect is going to look the same as we have always been playing it. It is the fact that passive effects are prioritized in the plot phase that leads to this result. It's a nuance that is easy to miss. I know I'm guilty of it.

[dcdennis 39]

 I tried to find an example of this using specific cards but there are too many to look through so I will just ask. Would a situation ever arise where two passive effects directly conflict with eachother?

For example, perhaps Card A had an effect that said 'all characters get -1 strength and are dead if 0' and card B said 'all characters get -1 strength and are discarded if 0'.

If that ever happens, what is the order of resolution? As determined by the first player?

 

 

[Ratatoskr 34]

dh098017 said:

 I tried to find an example of this using specific cards but there are too many to look through so I will just ask. Would a situation ever arise where two passive effects directly conflict with eachother?

For example, perhaps Card A had an effect that said 'all characters get -1 strength and are dead if 0' and card B said 'all characters get -1 strength and are discarded if 0'.

If that ever happens, what is the order of resolution? As determined by the first player?

It does happen, and the question comes up fairly often. The classical example would be the combo of Flame-Kissed and Threat from the North. The answer to this is found in the FAQ, page 7:

(2.5) Simultaneous but Conflicting Entry
into the Moribund State
If a character is killed, discarded, and/or
returned to a player's hand or deck at exactly
the same time, the first player decides which
of the destinations applies for the card's
Moribund state. (See "What is Moribund?" in
section III (page 15) for more information on
"Moribund.")

 

[webcraft2 0]

Imagine this situation:

One player reveal "Threaten from North" plot and I have a Hoster Tully (attached by a direwolf 'Summer' ) and a House Tully Recruiter in play. And my Hoster Tully is killed in a military challenge and this challenge is the last challenge in challenge phase, when will my House Tully Recruiter be discarded?

Hoster Tully will leave play at the last step of game frame window, so House Tully Recruited will only be discarded in next game frame window or player action window? That's too strange.

Suppose if Hoster Tully is killed by the effect of "Battle of Oxcross" plot, you will find I don't have a chance to discard Hose Tully Recruiter in challenge phase according to your reason.

So, waiting for your reply.

[webcraft2 0]

Hi, the above post is my question to Ktom, because I have doubt to his answer:)

[ktom 598]

The question has less to do with the application of Threat's "discard at 0" and more to do with when a continuous effect on a moribund card stops being applicable. Even if you look at the "discard at 0" applying continuously, the argument that the Recruiter is not 0 STR until Hoster Tully physically leaves play has the same result - the continuous effect wouldn't apply until the beginning of the next action window (player or framework), either.

Essentially, the question is, "Does the character that became discarded by Threat because of a continuous effect that physically left play in Step 6 of the previous window stay on the table, in moribund, through the next action window?" In the "end of phase" situation, it's really no big deal because whether your Recruiter is discarded from Threat in the "end challenge phase" window or the "begin dominance phase" window is a pretty academic distinction. It's not even that big of an issue "during the last challenge" because of the framework windows transitioning between active players and the end of the phase. The "framework to framework" situations don't give you a chance to do much of anything before stuff "normalizes." The bigger issue comes when you pass into a player action window. 

Most people I know play that if a card with a continuous effect STR effect, like Hoster Tully, enters moribund, passives are resolved as if the continuous effect has already left play, despite the fact that the effect is still technically active. This is consistent with cards like The Titan's Bastard, which Respond as if the card had already physically been removed from play. When doing this, the Recruiter enters moribund (discarded by Threat) right after Hoster enters moribund, even though it technically still has 1 STR.

If you want an official ruling on when the continuous effects of a moribund card are "turned off," I suggest you send it in to FFG. Until there, all I can tell you is that most people play it under an "it works because it works" approach, effectively resolving passives in the action window as if the STR modifying constants had already left play.

[crawdaddy8228 0]

Thread Necromanced

Alright, I am ready to be taken down by Ktom, but I have to ask anyway.  To the best of my knowledge, you admit that both the -1 str, and the discard effect of threat from the north are constant effects.  However, you are choosing to apply the discard at 0 effect as a passive because it conflicts with the rules for saving from terminal effects thus making the "cannot be saved" clause redundant?  I really don't understand the reason for this distinction since in most games that I play like this, the cards take priority over the established rules when in conflict.

The reason this is relevant is that I have see people kill their own Kindly Man after the flop.  Granted I can counter with Fortified Position, but I would like to know why Threat from the North isn't viable.

 

KU

[ktom 598]

Khal Usion said:

Alright, I am ready to be taken down by Ktom, but I have to ask anyway.  To the best of my knowledge, you admit that both the -1 str, and the discard effect of threat from the north are constant effects.

Read it again. That's not really what I said. I said that the -1 STR and the condition for discarding the character when it hits 0 STR are created by the constant effect. But just because a condition is created at "point A" does not mean it will have the opportunity to resolve at "point A." 

Think of a card like "Longship Iron Victory," which says "character gets +2 STR; if you win the challenge, draw 2 cards." The "draw 2 cards" condition is created by the triggered effect - but you don't actually get the cards until you win the challenge. But that isn't determined until later. So even though the condition is created in one place, the resolution of the passive/lasting effect thus created doesn't come until later - at the first opportunity you have to check if you won the challenge or not.

The important thing to remember here is that "and discard if their STR is 0" is the same wording as other passives effects. "if X, do Y." That's no different than "if you win the challenge, draw 2 cards." So the discard of the 0 STR character is passive and comes at the first opportunity you have to check the STR of the character.

As stated above, that first opportunity to check the STR and initiate a discard comes at the "passive" step of revealing the plot card. So there is no conflict with the timing rules here - the constant effect is created by revealing the plot, and you resolve the passive/lasting effect thus created at the first opportunity to do so, for as long as the passive/lasting effect is active.

Said another way, the "kill/discard at 0" part of any burn effect is a lasting effect with a delayed (passive) initiation. Normally, that delay is very, very short because the first opportunity for the "delayed initiation" to be checked comes almost immediately with nothing else really having a chance to happen in-between (Step 3 to Step 4). But in the case of revealing plots, the first opportunity to check such passive/lasting effects comes after all plot text, including "when revealed" plot text, is resolved. So there is other stuff happening between the creation of the effect and the first opportunity for it to resolve. In short, you don't get the chance to check for 0 STR until an initiating effect tells you to do so, which, for Threat from the North, comes after all other plot text. It only seems weird because most of the rest of the time, the first chance to check has nothing between it and the point when it was created.

[crawdaddy8228 0]

Thank you for the expanded explanation Ktom.  Not that I ever doubted your word, but I prefer to have an understanding of the rules when I am in an argument rather than relying on "Ktom said so."  The difference between constant and passive effects was really hanging me up there.  I will never admit to how long I spent flipping between your response, the faq, and a search engine, but I am glad to say thanks for having the patience to repeat yourself in a different way.

 

KU

[ktom 598]

Khal Usion said:

I prefer to have an understanding of the rules when I am in an argument rather than relying on "Ktom said so."

I agree. That is about the worst reason ever that something works or doesn't work in this game. 

Khal Usion said:

The difference between constant and passive effects was really hanging me up there.

It is not always an easy distinction, especially when there is a condition placed on whether or not the constant effect is applicable. (For example, if you stare at it too long, "If this card is standing, your characters get +1 STR" starts looking like a passive - initiated by the card standing - rather than a constant conditioned upon the card's kneeling/standing status.) But there is an easy way to determine if something is constant or passive:

If you can interrupt it's initiation with a save and/or cancel, it is passive. If not, it is constant. So in the previous example ("If this card is standing, your characters get +1 STR"), it must be constant because there is no place to interrupt the "get +1 STR" effect. You can interrupt the effect that stands or kneels the card, but not the effect that gives the +1 STR once the card actually is standing. However, you can interrupt the initiation of the "discard at 0" effect with a save - difficult though it is to find a save that meets the play necessary restrictions. (It actually depends a lot more on the difference between the "voice" of the verbs "get" and "discard" than any specific construction in the card text.)