Brothel Guard versus Lannisport Brothel.

[johnn0411 0]

Maybe I am just slow, But I am having a very hard time understanding how all of these rulings can fit together.

The only way I can make all this fit in my mind is by saying that when the response window opens up all possible responses check to see if they can be triggered then we all take turns triggering. Thus passive effects will already be applied but other responses will not. 

[mdc273 29]

johnn0411 said:

Maybe I am just slow, But I am having a very hard time understanding how all of these rulings can fit together.

The only way I can make all this fit in my mind is by saying that when the response window opens up all possible responses check to see if they can be triggered then we all take turns triggering. Thus passive effects will already be applied but other responses will not. 

Youre assessment is fairly accurate. The rulings that have come down recently effectively establish that a triggered response is valid to be triggered if its trigger condition/play restriction is met. This means when you play Bolton Refugees, you played a Str-2 character. Now the Dreadfort entry of the FAQ establishes that a response's trigger condition can ALSO be met at the time you attempt to initiate the response, so the game state can change in such a way to make a response valid later in the response window. Bolton Refugees + Winterfell Castle is the established precedent for this.

The issue is that certain aggregations of cards can cause a single action to satisfy multiple, conflicting trigger conditions. This example is the playing of a Str-2/Str-3 Bolton Refugee. I don't believe there are currently any cards that will make this conflicted initiation an issue, but that is where the discussion is going right now.

TL:DR - Once a cards trigger condition is met, it is valid to trigger. Trigger conditions can be met belatedly, like Bolton Refugee + Winterfell Castle + The Dreadfort, so long as at the time of the triggering, the game state presents a valid satisfaction of the trigger condition.

[johnn0411 0]

My issue with what was just said is, if the condition only has to be meet for the responce to trigger why would son of the mist not work? a player did play its last card. 

[-Istaril 157]

As of Damon's official speeding limit analogy, Sons of Mists *will* work, overturning the previous Ktom ruling.

[WWDrakey 5]

mdc273 said:

The issue is that certain aggregations of cards can cause a single action to satisfy multiple, conflicting trigger conditions. This example is the playing of a Str-2/Str-3 Bolton Refugee. I don't believe there are currently any cards that will make this conflicted initiation an issue, but that is where the discussion is going right now.

Umm… wouldn't that be really easy to test, simply by asking Damon whether you can draw for the Dreadfort after playing Steelshanks Walton when Hear me Roar is revealed? Together, that and the known functionality with Winterfell Castle should provide us with all of the info that we need.

[mdc273 29]

WWDrakey said:

mdc273 said:

 

The issue is that certain aggregations of cards can cause a single action to satisfy multiple, conflicting trigger conditions. This example is the playing of a Str-2/Str-3 Bolton Refugee. I don't believe there are currently any cards that will make this conflicted initiation an issue, but that is where the discussion is going right now.

 

 

Umm… wouldn't that be really easy to test, simply by asking Damon whether you can draw for the Dreadfort after playing Steelshanks Walton when Hear me Roar is revealed? Together, that and the known functionality with Winterfell Castle should provide us with all of the info that we need.

For the most part. I'm still left with an uneasy feeling because the ruling allows for duplicity of triggering effects, but if it will ever be an actual issue is difficult to determine. It probably won't.

I just sent him a question, so I'm going to wait on that answer before asking this.