Rules clarification

[imrahil327 5]

Just so I am 100% clear about your answer to Alpha's question above, you CANNOT kill Lucas for claim if you wish to use his effect?  Or am I completely misreading?

[ktom 598]

imrahil327 said:

Just so I am 100% clear about your answer to Alpha's question above, you CANNOT kill Lucas for claim if you wish to use his effect?  Or am I completely misreading?

You are completely misreading.

 

A challenge works like this:

1. Player Actions
2. Declare attackers (challenge starts)
3. Player Actions
4. Declare Defenders
5. Player Actions
6. Resolve Challenge (challenge ends)
7. Player actions

If Lucas is killed in a "Player Actions" step (1, 3, 5, or 7), the challenge he allows you to initiate must be initiated in the same Player Action Window.

If Lucas is killed in a Framework Action step (2, 4, or 6), the challenge he allows you to initiate must be initiated in the next Player Action Window.

According to the FAQ passage quoted above, it is illegal to initiate a challenge during another challenge. That means it is illegal to initiate the additional challenge from Lucas in 3 or 5. Therefore, if Lucas dies in 2, 3, 4, or 5, it will be illegal for you to initiate the challenge he gives to you.

Claim happens in #6. If Lucas dies for claim, you would initiate the challenge he gives you in #7 - after the last challenge ends.

[imrahil327 5]

Thank you, as always, for your patience and clarity

[Bomb 66]

ktom said:

Ratatoskr said:

Unless I'm mistaken, you infer that it is not so.

You are mistaken. The option you (although in this case, your opponent) cannot exercise is to defend with just one character. 

 

Why does Orell the Eagle's ability take precedence over the Joust keyword?

His ability and Joust may be a contradiction, but shouldn't that just mean the defender cannot defend at all since that is the only legal move?

This is now off topic haha.

 

Back on topic -

Everytime I read Lucas Blackwoods ability, it drives me crazy that his ability doesn't work the way I read it.  I don't read as the next opportunity.

On the contrary, when I read Vals ability, I actually read it as the next opportunity.  Perhaps because of how the other text in the ability reads...

[ktom 598]

Bomb said:

Why does Orell the Eagle's ability take precedence over the Joust keyword?

It doesn't.

Bomb said:

His ability and Joust may be a contradiction, but shouldn't that just mean the defender cannot defend at all since that is the only legal move?

Yes. That is the point here. Orell's ability prevents your opponent from meeting the restrictions placed on him by Joust. Joust prevents your opponent from meeting the restrictions placed on him by Orell. The only option left to simultaneously satisfy both effects is to declare no defenders at all.

Bomb said:

Everytime I read Lucas Blackwoods ability, it drives me crazy that his ability doesn't work the way I read it.  I don't read as the next opportunity.

On the contrary, when I read Vals ability, I actually read it as the next opportunity.  Perhaps because of how the other text in the ability reads...

What is probably making them seem like they should be different is the "may" vs. "must" wording.

Val is essentially, "You must do this next, or lose the card."

Lucas is essentially, "You may do this next" (which, btw, carries the inherent possibility to not do it, making this more of a "You may do this next, or not at all")

The important part is that the interpretation of "next" should not change between the two abilities. So since we know how to interpret "next" for Val, it should carry over to Lucas, too.

 

If Lucas read "You may initiate a MIL challenge as the next action you initiate this phase," then it would be "next taken" instead of "next opportunity."

[Bomb 66]

ktom said:

What is probably making them seem like they should be different is the "may" vs. "must" wording.

 

Val is essentially, "You must do this next, or lose the card."

Lucas is essentially, "You may do this next" (which, btw, carries the inherent possibility to not do it, making this more of a "You may do this next, or not at all")

The important part is that the interpretation of "next" should not change between the two abilities. So since we know how to interpret "next" for Val, it should carry over to Lucas, too.

 

If Lucas read "You may initiate a MIL challenge as the next action you initiate this phase," then it would be "next taken" instead of "next opportunity."

Yeah - I agree with all that.  The explanation makes perfect sense.  "Your next player action" just haunts me.  I guess you could say "your next player action" can be considered as doing nothing at all.

[ktom 598]

Bomb said:

I guess you could say "your next player action" can be considered as doing nothing at all.

That's actually a very good way to think of it. In a Player Action Window, you take turns doing stuff. So if you decide not to trigger anything, you are technically passing. Passing effectively becomes the action you take.

[Calepin 0]

Immune to events and character abilities : Do keywords are considered like a character ability ? My opinion is no, but I was not sure.

[ktom 598]

Luckily, it's in the FAQ, so we don't have to guess:

(3.7) Card Abilities
"Card abilities" (i.e. "Character ability,"
"Location ability," or "Attachment ability")
refers to anything in a card's text box, except
for traits, keywords, and flavor text. "Card
abilities" also refers to any abilities (again,
keywords and traits are excluded) gained by
card effects