bronn and House Dayne Skirmisher

[db123456 0]

 use bronn‘s ability to HD skirmisher,then uses skirmisher's ability. will it put into deads pile and draw/discard a card?

[Slothgodfather 270]

db123456 said:

 use bronn‘s ability to HD skirmisher,then uses skirmisher's ability. will it put into deads pile and draw/discard a card?

 

Are you refering to the "pay 2 gold … stand Bronn to not kill a character" effect?   And trying to use it to cancel the House Dayne Skirmisher from triggering?

If so, that is an interesting concept, since Bronn's ability isn't worded as a "save".  However, if you did manage to "not kill" the HD Skirmisher after they try to trigger their ability, then I guess the skirmisher would not be killed, and since the cost is never paid, the rest of the text (draw and discard both) don't trigger.   However, as an any phase action, they could just trigger the ability again on the HD skirmishers and your Bronn would already be standing.   I could be wrong, but I believe that is what would happen.

[Bomb 66]

The way I see it is the character is still considered "killed" where Bronn's ability is a kill replacement effect.  Similar to how Darkstar is still considered "discarded" from your hand but is instead put into play, even when it is used to pay for a cost of an effect.

Sounds like a legal move to me and a way to keep House Dayne Skirmisher from being killed.  That being said, this is one way to keep "cannot be saved" characters from being killed.

 

[ktom 598]

Bomb said:

The way I see it is the character is still considered "killed" where Bronn's ability is a kill replacement effect.  Similar to how Darkstar is still considered "discarded" from your hand but is instead put into play, even when it is used to pay for a cost of an effect.

Because of the way he is worded, Bronn is different. Compare the text:

Bronn: "Any Phase: Pay 2 gold to choose a character. Until the end of the phase, if that character would be killed and Bronn is kneeling, stand Bronn instead of killing that character."

Darkstar: "If Darkstar would be discarded from your hand or deck, put him into play instead."

When just the word "instead" is used, the replacement is to the disposition of the effect. So with Darkstar, the discard effect resolves by putting the card into play instead of into the discard pile, but it is still the discard effect that resolves. You respond, etc. to the card being discarded. However, since Bronn specifies "instead of killing that character," the entire effect, not just its disposition, is replaced. The effect therefore resolves entirely as a "stand Bronn" effect (at least as far as that character is concerned), not as a "kill the character" effect.

So, because of Bronn's specific wording, the kill never happens for that character and you respond, etc. to Bronn standing, not to the character being killed. So Sloth's reasoning that the Skirmisher's cost is not paid is true. If the cost is not paid, the effect is never initiated in the first place.

Nice combo to keep Bronn standing, at least.

[Bomb 66]

ktom said:

Because of the way he is worded, Bronn is different. Compare the text:

 

Bronn: "Any Phase: Pay 2 gold to choose a character. Until the end of the phase, if that character would be killed and Bronn is kneeling, stand Bronn instead of killing that character."

Darkstar: "If Darkstar would be discarded from your hand or deck, put him into play instead."

When just the word "instead" is used, the replacement is to the disposition of the effect. So with Darkstar, the discard effect resolves by putting the card into play instead of into the discard pile, but it is still the discard effect that resolves. You respond, etc. to the card being discarded. However, since Bronn specifies "instead of killing that character," the entire effect, not just its disposition, is replaced. The effect therefore resolves entirely as a "stand Bronn" effect (at least as far as that character is concerned), not as a "kill the character" effect.

So, because of Bronn's specific wording, the kill never happens for that character and you respond, etc. to Bronn standing, not to the character being killed. So Sloth's reasoning that the Skirmisher's cost is not paid is true. If the cost is not paid, the effect is never initiated in the first place.

Nice combo to keep Bronn standing, at least.

Eek.  The whole replacement specific text stuff gives me heartburn.

I recall an entire discussion awhile back on the difference between all of these replacement effects due to the specifics of their text and it is coming back to me now.

So, if it ended at "stand Bronn." it would count as a successful kill effect I presume.

[ktom 598]

Bomb said:

So, if it ended at "stand Bronn." it would count as a successful kill effect I presume.

"…stand Bronn instead," but yeah. The kill effect would be considered to have resolved by standing Bronn instead of sending the other character to the dead pile.

[johnn0411 0]

 maybe i am reading inti this too much but by that logic wouldnt that mean darkstar replacesthe discard thus that player never discarded and still needs to?

[ktom 598]

johnn0411 said:

maybe i am reading inti this too much but by that logic wouldnt that mean darkstar replacesthe discard thus that player never discarded and still needs to?

Actually, you are not reading enough into it.

Bronn says to stand him instead "of killing that character." By specifically adding the text "of killing that character," he becomes a full replacement and the effect stops being a killing effect and starts being a "stand Bronn" effect. Therefore, the kill never resolves.

However, Darkstar just says to put him into play "instead." It does not specify "instead of discarding him," therefore, the original discard still resolves rather than becoming a "put into play" effect. So the fact that Darkstar does not say "put him into play instead of discarding him" means that, for all intents and purposes, you discard him into play instead of into the discard pile. So the discard does resolve.

[Bomb 66]

The House Dayne Reserves is another example sounding like Bronn:

If House Dayne Reserves is discarded from your hand for the claim of an challenge, put it into play instead of your discard pile.

Is this not comparable because it only changes the destination of the discarded card?  Basically, is House Dayne Reserves still considered discarded for triggering Responses to discarding from hand?

 

[ktom 598]

Bomb said:

The House Dayne Reserves is another example sounding like Bronn:

If House Dayne Reserves is discarded from your hand for the claim of an challenge, put it into play instead of your discard pile.

Is this not comparable because it only changes the destination of the discarded card?  Basically, is House Dayne Reserves still considered discarded for triggering Responses to discarding from hand?

You are emphasizing form, not function.

Bronn is "if X would happen, do Y instead of doing X."   Effectively, the "instead of" part matches the resolving effect, so X (killing the character) is fully replaced with Y (standing Bronn).

Darkstar is "if X would happen, it results in Y instead."   Here, X (discarding the character) is not specifically replaced by anything, so it results in Y (putting the character into play). X still resolves, just in a different way than you expect.

For the Reserves, while it is following a form similar to Bronn, it is saying the same thing (just with more words) as Darkstar. Essentially, the Reserves are saying "if X would happen (which normally results in Z), do Y instead of Z." So the Reserves do not replace X (discarding the card for intrigue claim) with Y (putting the card into play); they replace Z (putting the card in the discard pile) with Y (putting the card into play) - meaning that X results in Y instead of Z. That's what Darkstar does.

So, looking at that more carefully, you'll notice that the card is still discarded (into play) for intrigue claim. So the form may resemble Bronn, but the function is the same as Darkstar. You still respond to the card being discarded.

For the Reserves to be like Bronn, they would have to say "When House Dayne Reserves are discarded from your hand for the claim of an intrigue challenge, put them into play instead of discarding them from your hand." Do you see the difference from how it is actually worded?

[danach82 19]

ktom said:

For the Reserves to be like Bronn, they would have to say "When House Dayne Reserves are discarded from your hand for the claim of an intrigue challenge, put them into play instead of discarding them from your hand." Do you see the difference from how it is actually worded?

Although in that example, wouldn't it have to be "When House Dayne Reserves would be discarded from your hand for the claim of an intrigue challenge, put them into play instead of discarding them from your hand."

[Slothgodfather 270]

I want to get in on the formula action as well, but I may regret it after I was already told my previous reasoning was correct:

Kill House Dayne Skirmisher (cannot be saved) to draw 1 card. Then, each opponent chooses and discards 1 card from his or her hand.

Writing the above into a formula:

Do X to do Y.  Then, each opponent does Z.

Obviously, the X must resolve for the TO DO portion of Y.  However, I believe from another thread that the success of a TO DO is irrellivant to the next sentence of THEN.  If I'm remembering that conversation correctly, then even if you manage to "not kill" the skirmishers, the THEN portion is still triggered because it does not care if the previous action completed successfully.

More on this theory however, is, with the use of Bronn's ability, we are replacing the X of the statement with A, where A is "Stand Bronn to not kill that character."

So, in this case does it become: Do A to do Y, Then do Z. ??

Provided Bronn successfully stands, does that count as a successful cost to the Do X(A) to do Y formula?  It's not like the text reads "After HD Skirmishers are dead and buried, draw 1 card.  Then…"

 

 

 

 

 

[Amuk 9]

Slothgodfather said:

Obviously, the X must resolve for the TO DO portion of Y.  However, I believe from another thread that the success of a TO DO is irrellivant to the next sentence of THEN.  If I'm remembering that conversation correctly, then even if you manage to "not kill" the skirmishers, the THEN portion is still triggered because it does not care if the previous action completed successfully.

The FAQ (4.9) states that "If a card uses the word "then," then the preceding effect must have been resolved successfully for the subsequent dependent effect to be resolved."

This is expressly noted as an exception to the rule that multiple effects on a card resolve independently.

[ktom 598]

Slothgodfather said:

Do X to do Y.  Then, each opponent does Z.

Obviously, the X must resolve for the TO DO portion of Y.  However, I believe from another thread that the success of a TO DO is irrellivant to the next sentence of THEN.  If I'm remembering that conversation correctly, then even if you manage to "not kill" the skirmishers, the THEN portion is still triggered because it does not care if the previous action completed successfully.

As Amuk says, you have this exactly backwards. Before the "then" portion can even initiate, the part before the "then" must be completed successfully. So in the situation of House Dayne Skirmisher, if the Martell player fails to draw a card for any reason (the effect is canceled, they have already hit their draw cap, or they have no cards in their deck, for example), the whole part of the effect that makes other players discard never even initiates.

Slothgodfather said:

More on this theory however, is, with the use of Bronn's ability, we are replacing the X of the statement with A, where A is "Stand Bronn to not kill that character."

So, in this case does it become: Do A to do Y, Then do Z. ??

This is also an incorrect construction. X is your cost. By replacing X with A, you did not pay the correct cost of the effect. Since you did not pay the correct cost of the effect, you cannot say that the effect (Y, then Z) ever initiates in the first place.

This is the whole point of this discussion, by the way. If the Skirmisher doesn't die, you do not pay the cost and the effect never initiates. Period.

And the construction of Bronn's effect is such that the Skrimisher would never die. If it never dies, you do not pay the cost. Period.

Bronn's construction is different from other replacement effects. You can say that the Darkstar is "discarded into play" (and thus, he was discarded and you did pay the cost), but you cannot say that the Skirmisher was "killed into Bronn standing." The whole point of this discussion is that A does not and cannot replace X in such a way as to say that X actually happened, so your "Do X to do Y, then Z" formula never gets off the ground.

Slothgodfather said:

Provided Bronn successfully stands, does that count as a successful cost to the Do X(A) to do Y formula?  It's not like the text reads "After HD Skirmishers are dead and buried, draw 1 card.  Then…"

But it does say "Kill House Dayne Skirmisher to…". In this scenario, standing Bronn does not count as a successful killing of the Skirmisher. You didn't kill the Skirmisher, so you didn't pay the cost.

Saying it another way: When you discarded Darkstar from your hand, you ended up with one less card in your hand - so the discard was successful even though the card ended up in play instead of in the discard pile. When you stood Bronn instead of killing the Skirmisher, you ended up with the Skirmisher still in play, alive and not moribun - so the kill was not successful by any stretch of the imagination.

[Amuk 9]

ktom said:

Slothgodfather said:

Do X to do Y.  Then, each opponent does Z.

 

Obviously, the X must resolve for the TO DO portion of Y.  However, I believe from another thread that the success of a TO DO is irrellivant to the next sentence of THEN.  If I'm remembering that conversation correctly, then even if you manage to "not kill" the skirmishers, the THEN portion is still triggered because it does not care if the previous action completed successfully.

As Amuk says, you have this exactly backwards. Before the "then" portion can even initiate, the part before the "then" must be completed successfully. So in the situation of House Dayne Skirmisher, if the Martell player fails to draw a card for any reason (the effect is canceled, they have already hit their draw cap, or they have no cards in their deck, for example), the whole part of the effect that makes other players discard never even initiates.

 

Going back to the discussion of the lack of templating, it can sometimes be confusing when these dependent effects are not plainly indicated as such. If a "then" effect comes after a comma, it's (almost always) pretty clearly dependent on whatever came before the comma. When they put a period in the middle, though, it can mislead one into thinking the two effects are independent if one hasn't memorized the FAQ (and I know I haven't; I regularly find something I've been doing wrong when reading it).

[johnn0411 0]

 if that is the case why put can not be saved? wouldnt saving it mae it so you have not paid thecost thus the effect never resolves?

[Unbowed 0]

johnn0411 said:

 if that is the case why put can not be saved? wouldnt saving it mae it so you have not paid thecost thus the effect never resolves?

The reason is that otherwise your opponent could save him to prevent the effect from happening (at least, that is what I heard somewhere).

[radiskull 39]

 Cannot be saved as part of a cost is merely a reminder.

Remember that costs are paid in step 1 of an effect's initiation, where saves and cancels happen in step 2.

By the time saves are allowed, the costs have already been paid and it's too late to save anyone.

[Slothgodfather 270]

Except Bronn isn't a save, it's a replacement effect.   So back to my original answer then.  And since the price is not paid, he doesn't trigger and is not dead, but Bronn would get to stand.  Like someone else mentioned, it would be an interesting way to stand Bronn repeatedly.  But if you are controlling Bronn and your opponent is controlling the HD Skirmishers, you could only relace the effect if Bronn successfully stands.  So after you managed to cancel it once, your opponent could still simply trigger the response again as an Any Phase action.

[Bomb 66]

Slothgodfather said:

 

Except Bronn isn't a save, it's a replacement effect.   So back to my original answer then.  And since the price is not paid, he doesn't trigger and is not dead, but Bronn would get to stand.  Like someone else mentioned, it would be an interesting way to stand Bronn repeatedly.  But if you are controlling Bronn and your opponent is controlling the HD Skirmishers, you could only relace the effect if Bronn successfully stands.  So after you managed to cancel it once, your opponent could still simply trigger the response again as an Any Phase action.

 

 

You are starting to use terms that make the subject much more confusing with "cancel" and "response".  If you are not mixing the terms up, mind elaborating on what you mean by using them? 

 ----------------

I want to ask the following just to hear what people think.  If Bronn replaces House Dayne Skirmishers kill cost, and the effect is not triggered, then does the Player Action window end right there?  Can I play a Response to Bronn standing?

My gut tells me no because the effect was not triggered, so you do not go to Step 2 and beyond in the player action window.  He simply stands and that's it.

[ktom 598]

Bomb said:

You are starting to use terms that make the subject much more confusing with "cancel" and "response".  If you are not mixing the terms up, mind elaborating on what you mean by using them?

If Bronn replaces the kill-for-cost and the cost is not paid, the effect is not "canceled" by the normal definition. The effect doesn't happen, but it's not the same mechanic. Similarly, the Martell player would not "respond" by triggering the Skirmisher again; they would wait until their next action opportunity and trigger it again. Same ultimate result, but an important distinction of timing.

 ----------------

Bomb said:

I want to ask the following just to hear what people think.  If Bronn replaces House Dayne Skirmishers kill cost, and the effect is not triggered, then does the Player Action window end right there?  Can I play a Response to Bronn standing?

My gut tells me no because the effect was not triggered, so you do not go to Step 2 and beyond in the player action window.  He simply stands and that's it.

The catch-22 on that is if the effect never triggers at all, then the character should not have been killed, and Bronn should not have had the opportunity to stand in the first place. You end up with a paradox. So to avoid the paradox, you could say that the effect initiated unsuccessfully and you'd have the opportunity to respond to Bronn standing. Or, you could send it in to FFG since that is where we need to go when we hit a paradox.

[Slothgodfather 270]

Ah sorry, you are correct Bomb.   Let me try this again:

"Except Bronn isn't a save, it's a replacement effect.   So back to my original answer then.  And since the price is not paid, he (the Skirmisher) doesn't trigger his ANY PHASE ability and is not dead, but Bronn would get to stand.  Like someone else mentioned, it would be an interesting way to stand Bronn repeatedly.  But if you are controlling Bronn and your opponent is controlling the HD Skirmishers, you could only relace the effect of killing the HD Skirmisher if Bronn successfully stands.  So after you managed to replace it once, your opponent could still simply trigger the ANY PHASE ability again (at the first available time in a standard Player Actions window).

I think that is worded more accurately.. I may still need more coffee.

[Bomb 66]

Slothgodfather said:

Ah sorry, you are correct Bomb.   Let me try this again:

"Except Bronn isn't a save, it's a replacement effect.   So back to my original answer then.  And since the price is not paid, he (the Skirmisher) doesn't trigger his ANY PHASE ability and is not dead, but Bronn would get to stand.  Like someone else mentioned, it would be an interesting way to stand Bronn repeatedly.  But if you are controlling Bronn and your opponent is controlling the HD Skirmishers, you could only relace the effect of killing the HD Skirmisher if Bronn successfully stands.  So after you managed to replace it once, your opponent could still simply trigger the ANY PHASE ability again (at the first available time in a standard Player Actions window).

I think that is worded more accurately.. I may still need more coffee.

Hey no problem.  I figured that's what you meant, but wanted to make sure I understood where you were headed!